W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Use cases wrt Dataset proposal (UC 1.5, UC 5.2)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:35:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4F52646E.8010806@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 3/3/12 5:35 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 3 March 2012 06:12, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us>  wrote:
>
>> Um...biology? (Do you seriously believe that a document can be a person? Even the US Supreme Court hasnt quite gone that far yet.)
> If a book with no words, just pictures, can be a document; or a book
> written on parchment or bytes rather than paper, then why not a
> tattoo'd person being a book?
>
> You might argue that their physical body was just a carrier for the
> document, and that the person wasn't themselves the document. The
> relationship between a person and their body isn't something with a
> tidy answer, any more than the relationship between a physical book
> and the abstract document it carries has an obvious perfect formal
> model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records).
>
> Your use of "seriously" suggests the idea is obviously ridiculous, but
> the restrictions you'd need on 'document' would likely rule out other
> more obvious documents too. Perhaps you meant HTTP document? I have a
> hard time imagining an HTTP document being a person, ...
>
> Dan
>
> p.s.
> See also http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/whatdoc.html
>
> "Abstract: Ordinarily the word "document" denotes a textual record.
> Increasingly sophisticated attempts to provide access to the rapidly
> growing quantity of available documents raised questions about which
> should be considered a "document". The answer is important for any
> definition of the scope of Information Science. Paul Otlet and others
> developed a functional view of "document" and discussed whether, for
> example, sculpture, museum objects, and live animals, could be
> considered "documents". Suzanne Briet equated "document" with
> organized physical evidence. These ideas appear to resemble notions of
> "material culture" in cultural anthropology and "object-as-sign" in
> semiotics. Others, especially in the USA (e.g. Jesse Shera and Louis
> Shores) took a narrower view. New digital technology renews old
> questions and also old confusions between medium, message, and
> meaning."
>
>

Taking a different route to the point Dan is making, how about this:
A uri can identify a document.
A uri can identify a document location. This is also a url, a subclass 
of a uri.
A uri can identify a document subject.
Anything can be a document subject.

Bearing in mind the above, you can have a document (xyz.owl) that 
describes an ontology. Thus, said document (xyz.owl) can have a uri 
distinct from the ontology uri (the subject of xyx.owl).

Here is some Virtuoso SPASQL that demonstrates my point:

### Nepomuk Personal Information Management Ontology cleanup
### Problem: the descriptor document (doc describing the ontology is 
missing critical relations such as: rdfs:isDefinedBy and 
wdrs:describedby ).
### Solution: add the missing relations to a named graph in Virtuoso via 
the SPASQL below.
### Important points: the ontology has its own uri distinct from the uri 
(basically url) of the descriptor document.


INSERT INTO <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/>
{?s rdfs:isDefinedBy 
<http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo#> .
<http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo#> 
<http://open.vocab.org/terms/defines> ?s.
<http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo#> a 
owl:Ontology .
?s <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby> 
<http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/>}
FROM <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/>
WHERE { optional {?s rdfs:subClassOf ?o}. optional {?s 
rdfs:subPropertyOf ?o}. optional {?s owl:equivalentClass ?o}. optional 
{?s owl:equivalentProperty ?o}. optional {?s a ?o}}


Here's are urls of  documents that showcases the effects of the above:

1. 
http://uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.semanticdesktop.org%2Fontologies%2F2007%2F11%2F01%2Fpimo%23 
-- ontology as subject of a descriptor document

2. 
http://uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschemapedia.com%2Fschemas%2Fsemanticdesktop-pimo 
-- descriptor document that has an ontology as its primary topic (or 
subject).


I hope this helps.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen








Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 18:35:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT