W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > November 2006

RE: The Steven King Example

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:39:26 -0000
Message-ID: <86FE9B2B91ADD04095335314BE6906E897FFC7@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>, "public-grddl-wg" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Hi Murray,

Sometimes I'm a pompous ass.  I think I was this time.


> >http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ "is a" "web page"

That was the essence of my comment.  That URI identifies a web page
about the novel, not the novel itself.  And Ian's reply suggests a
simpler fix to the example than had previously occurred to me.

So if I had written instead something like:

There is a buglet in the RDF because
http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ doesn't identify the
novel.  This can be fixed by just dropping the URI giving instead ...

[[
<rdf:Description>
  <dc:title>The Stand</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Stephen King</dc:creator>
  <foaf:maker>
    <foaf:Person>
      <foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf 
        rdf:resource="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King" />
    </foaf:Person>
  </foaf:maker>
  <dc:format>Book</dc:format>
</rdf:Description>
]]

This says "there is something called 'The Stand' which was made by
Steven King".  It doesn't give a URI for the 'The Stand' because we
don't have one easily to hand.  

Dan may disagree with the claim that 

  http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/

Does not identify the novel.  I think there are murky complex waters
there which the TAG pondered on for a long time and since we'd like to
get done quickly we'd be best to stay away from and stick to examples
that don't stray into the tarpit.  There is nothing here that affects
GRDDL itself - its just an example.

Brian




> 
> Well, an Information Resource in Web parlance, so I hope that 
> we can treat that as an already known fact. No extra complexity.
> 
> >http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ "conveys fact" 
> "the fact"
> 
> All Information Resources, by definition, contain 
> information. No extra complexity there.
> 
> >"the fact" "has subject" "stephen king"
> >
> >"the fact" "has predicate" "is author of"
> >
> >"the fact" "has object" "The Stand"
> 
> On this much we agree. So why is it so hard to get the GRDDL 
> WG, as a representative sample of the Semantic Web community, 
> to agree on how you spell that triple? And why is it even 
> harder to have them agree on a consistent interpretation 
> after the triple has been published?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I am really hoping that y'all can answer 
> these questions and help get me to a place where I can read 
> and write RDF well enough to be able to read and write simple 
> and straightforward examples. I am hoping that I can get to 
> place where I can really see the merit in using RDF to convey 
> information. As it is, I find it easier to discover authors 
> and titles in HTML and DocBook than RDF/XML because I can 
> follow my nose to a DTD or Schema whose prose descriptions of 
> elements/properties are far easier to grok than any RDF that 
> I have ever seen.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Murray
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 25 November 2006 10:39:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:46 GMT