W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2008

Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:42:51 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0806211942x29860ebcvd658bb99a90de262@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Nicholas Humfrey" <Nicholas.Humfrey@bbc.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org

2008/6/22 Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>:
> The target of foaf:page is a thing, a web page.
>
> If you write a literal string, you are saying the foaf page is that string.
> That's not what you want to say.

Not if you type it with xsd:anyURI... Is there no separation allowed
between the web and the semantic web really? I thought the semantic
web was based on logic not web structures? The semantic web doesn't
gain anything from the result of that page, which clearly has an
alternative semantic representation available that you are already
looking at when you see the foaf:page (or whatever predicate allows
literals) statement.

If you accept that the ontology you are using puts xsd:anyURI typed
literals into a given field it is perfectly meaningful to use the
string as you do any other URI string, just in a context which won't
be interfered with, or interfere itself with, the logic based semantic
web rules.

> The web page is
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html> (the thing that the URI
> denotes)

It isn't an RDF Resource any more than my street and suburb address
though, it is a simple human based locator which doesn't really have a
need or want to be an RDF Resource IMO. It is a coincidence IMO that
it is defined in the same way that RDF Resources are, and it isn't
useful to mix everything up by presuming that URL's of web pages are
useful as RDF Resources any more than arbitrary string literals.

> not
>
> "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html"  (a string, or a URI, if you
> wrote it using "http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html"^^xsd:anyURI)
>
> It's not a matter of being for or against it. It's a matter of writing what
> you mean.

If you put xsd:anyURI there it is reasonably clear what you mean. Why
are all URL's presumed to be RDF Resources by default? If you think
all URI's and only URI's are RDF Resources then it might fit but I
don't think that and hence won't "mean" it when I say it.

> -Alan
>
> On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
>
>>
>> 2008/6/22 Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>:
>>>
>>> On 21 Jun 2008, at 23:41, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <foaf:page>http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b07kw.html</foaf:page>
>>>>
>>>> Note that in the above notation the page is an actual URL string and
>>>> not an RDF resource which is intended because the person already has
>>>> the semantic resource and just wants to get to the human readable
>>>> version.
>>>
>>> Uh.
>>>
>>> Peter, the domain of foaf:page is foaf:Document. You can't put an
>>> rdfs:Literal there. This is a rather weird suggestion.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> Sorry about that. Is there any ontology term which can do that?
>>
>> Why are people so anti putting http URL's in as Literals? If it is an
>> HTML page that relates to your current semantic "thing" then it seems
>> reasonable to have it as a literal to me.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 02:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:16 UTC