W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [SKOS] Comments on SKOS Primer - attn: Ivan

From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:18:51 +0100
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090107161851.GB796@octavius>


On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:42:48PM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >-- Section 4.2 uses the notion of a "structured RDF value".
> >   I feel ambivalent as to whether the phrase "structured
> >   value" is helpful.  I note that a Google search on the
> >   exact phrase "structured RDF value" (in quotes) yields
> >   only one hit -- the RDF Primer, and a search on RDF and
> >   structured and value yields mostly material from 2004 or
> >   before.  If we use it here, we would effectively resurrect
> >   its use.  Do we really want to do this, or are there other
> >   ways of expressing this that are more up-to-date?
> >
> >   I note that use of the phrase "structured value" is
> >   orthogonal to the question of whether or not to use
> >   rdf:value.
> Personally I cannot come with something else. "structured resource" is not 
> ideal imho, as it can lead to many ambiguities. We could have "non-literal 
> value", but that does not say much...

A word for this is needed in alot of other contexts as well
(as in [1], which uses "non-literal value"), so I'd like to
hear some more opinions.  

The context in Section 4.2 is:

    In this second pattern, the object of a documentation
    statement consists of a structured RDF value--that is, a
    resource node (eventually blank) that can be the subject
    of further RDF statements [RDF-PRIMER]. This is especially
    useful to represent with RDF more information about the
    documentation itself, such as its creator or creation

The RDF Primer is a W3C Recommendation, but am I correct in
saying that the phrase "structured RDF value" (or "structured
value") is not currently being used in W3C documents or in
the literature?

In circa 2000, "structured value" was used in the Dublin Core
context but for something quite different -- i.e., a method
for encoding simple structured data in text strings which is
rarely used today except for a few specific constructs.

The phrase "structured value" seems to be aimed at people who
are comfortable with the notion of descriptions nested within
(XML) elements.  In the graph paradigm, however, I'm not sure
it is helpful to refer to a node which itself has properties
as something that is ipso facto "structured".  I agree that
"structured resource" is no better, but in effect I think
"structured value" presents the same difficulty.

I am Cc'ing Ivan, who has presented alot of Semantic Web


P.S. Antoine: in the above quote, the phrase "eventually blank"
     should be changed to "possibly blank" - something I missed before.

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/profile-guidelines/#appc

Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 16:19:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:55 UTC