W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Content negotiation: Why always redirect from non-information resource to information resource?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:11:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4B618CF1.3070702@openlinksw.com>
To: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
CC: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Vyacheslav Zholudev <v.zholudev@jacobs-university.de>, Florian Rabe <f.rabe@jacobs-university.de>
Richard Light wrote:
> In message <4B605247.6030201@openlinksw.com>, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> writes
>>> And that mixing and matching Linked Data, Topic Maps and full-text 
>>> XML  (etc.) can potentially take us to some exciting new places.  
>>> (But then  that's hardly news.  I remember discussing the value of 
>>> URNs for this  sort of purpose some time around 1994.)
>> I agree, and I am simply saying: Topics are Things too, and they can 
>> exist in EAV/CR model relationship graphs.
>
> Sure.  Has anyone actually tried that: storing assertions in a triple 
> store, but treating them as a "virtual Topic Map"?  It's an approach 
> which might yield benefits - and there are possibly paradigms other 
> than Topic Maps which could usefully be virtualized on top of 
> triple-store data.
>
>> I think we are exhibiting semantic pedantry here based on our 
>> individual world views, which is fine, since this is really what this 
>> whole gig is supposed to facilitate :-)
>
> Not just semantic pedantry, Kingsley, fun though that is ;-)  My 
> inclusion, above, of full-text XML adds, I think, another dimension to 
> this debate.
I think all dimensions are expressable via relations using existing 
infrastructure be it the relationship collection associate with <link 
rel="{some-relation}" .../> or claims in RDF triples.

I believe you are describing an "association".
>
> In all of this clever flattening of heterogeneous data onto the level 
> playing field which is RDF, we are enabling information retrieval: the 
> answering of questions.  And that's fine.  The information that is 
> flowing around and available to us in this context is all RDF: simple 
> assertions.  
They are really EAV based assertions, RDF is a framework that uses this 
model to facilitate a webby variant of EAV via incorporation of URIs 
(generally) and Generic HTTP URIs  specifically re. Linked Data.  The 
actual graph model of EAV has been with us for a very long time.
> However, the user who originally asked the question might not be 
> satisfied with this type of information: they might want a story, not 
> facts.  Where does the story come from?
The document that contains it. Said document has a URI (like any other 
Item of interest).
>
> If each subject of discourse (whose URI we already know) can be 
> delivered as full-text XML via the standard 303 redirection mechanism, 
> that gives us one way of grabbing the full story in 
> machine-processible form, and including whatever parts of it are 
> relevant in our responses to questions

To the degree I understand what you are trying to articulate, I do 
believe this can happen as is, even via SPARQL with the XML processed 
from a literal object in a triple.


Kingsley
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter: kidehen 
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 13:11:50 UTC

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