W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > May 2008

RE: Proposal to drop support for pointing to a specific DR

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 17:02:02 +0200
Message-ID: <398533C370C23441981074C456AA3BDD031DB41E@QEO00226.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Meant to go to the group...

Hi Phil,

If I understand this correctly it also means that we will NOT be able to
have one or a few documents that contain all the DRs we need.

Is that correct?

-- Kai  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: Public POWDER
> Subject: Re: Proposal to drop support for pointing to a specific DR
> 
> 
> The further implications of this - dropping support for 
> linking directly to a specific DR rather and only talking in 
> terms of linking to a POWDER document - is that the very 
> confusing and potentially troublesome business of having 
> ordered lists of DRs across multiple documents can be got rid 
> of. Section 2.4.1 [1] suggests using dc:isPartOf and well, it 
> just looks ugly. I don't think we lose anything, and gain a 
> lot of clarity, if we say that ordered lists of DRs must be 
> in a single document.
> 
> All of which means that we can drop the whole of section 2.4 
> and just have a note in the linkage section that allows one 
> POWDER doc to point to another so that once you've found one 
> POWDER doc, you can find other related ones - something I 
> think Kai has mentioned a few times.
> 
> Unless someone screams, I'll do this in the version I'm 
> editing now (it can always be put back).
> 
> Phil.
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080317/#partOf
> 
> Phil Archer wrote:
> > 
> > We have a slight problem, but only a slight one.
> > 
> > In the current published version of the DR doc there's a section on 
> > "Multiple DRs With Different Attribution" [1]. This 
> suggests that you 
> > can do this:
> > 
> > <dr xml:id="red">
> >   <iriset>
> >     <includehosts>example.com</includehosts>
> >   </iriset>
> > 
> >   <descriptorset>
> >     <palette:color>red</palette:color>
> >   </descriptorset>
> > </dr>
> > 
> > <dr ref="http://example.com/powder2.xml#square" />
> > 
> > i.e. link from a POWDER doc to a specific DR in another doc.
> > 
> > Well, you can in POWDER. The semantics here being that after you've 
> > finished parsing the first DR, you might want to go and 
> take a look at 
> > http://example.com/powder2.xml#square. Fine... but it doesn't 
> > translate exactly into POWDER-S. At least, not as we're now 
> writing it 
> > following the discussion over how to express the sub class 
> > relationship [2]. The simpler way to assert the sub class, 
> and in my 
> > view the more natural way, is to do this:
> > 
> > <owl:Class rdf:about="#resourceset_1">
> >   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:ID="description_1"/> </owl:Class>
> > 
> > This has particular benefits when it comes to expressing 
> ordered lists 
> > in POWDER-S where it becomes a very elegant and simple way of 
> > excluding IRI sets that should be excluded 'cos they're 
> higher up the 
> > list (see the Stasinos paper on this).
> > 
> > But... notice that the descriptor set and IRI set have their 
> > identifiers and the bit of RDF/OWL here just adds to the 
> information 
> > about
> > resourceset_1 - it has no identity of its own. Therefore, there is 
> > nowhere to use the 'square' identifier that we had in the original 
> > POWDER XML.
> > 
> > Does this matter?
> > 
> > What exactly should a processor do with the information 
> that 'there's 
> > another DR at http://example.com/powder2.xml#square ? Shouldn't it 
> > first decide whether to trust it or not? If you go straight 
> to the DR 
> > you might skip the attribution information - which goes against the 
> > ethos somewhat (and means a different processing model depending 
> > whether you arrive at the DR with or without a fragment 
> identifier). I 
> > think it could be argued... OK, I will argue... that the 
> better thing 
> > to do is to link to the external document as a whole. One 
> might think of it like this:
> > 
> > <attribution>
> >   <maker ref="http://www.example.org/foaf.rdf#me" /> </attribution>
> > 
> > <dr xml:id="red">
> >   <iriset>
> >     <includehosts>example.com</includehosts>
> >   </iriset>
> >   <descriptorset>
> >     <palette:color>red</palette:color>
> >   </descriptorset>
> > </dr>
> > 
> > <seealso ref="http://example.com/powder2.xml" />
> > 
> > In POWDER-S that last element would become:
> > 
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
> >   <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://example.com/powder2.xml
> > </rdf:Description>
> > 
> > Which means, in POWDER-S, you may as well put it in what we 
> think of 
> > as the attribution block since the subject of the triple is the 
> > document itself, as is the case for the foaf stuff etc.
> > 
> > I hope I'm making this clear although I fear I may not be :-(.
> > 
> > Basically, I'm arguing that we should just use an element called 
> > <seealso /> to link from one POWDER doc to another and not 
> worry about 
> > linking to a specific DR.
> > 
> > Phil.
> > 
> > 
> > [2] 
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Apr/0034.html
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080317/#multiDRatt
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 15:02:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT