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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:27:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4964D808.4080006@w3.org>
To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Tom, Antoine,

I must admit that it is the first time I even hear this 'structured RDF
value' term:-) It definitely does not look like a generally used notion
and, as you say, it may not be too meaningful in a graph context.

In the context I would try to replace 'structured RDF value' by
something like 'general RDF node' or something like that...

My 2 pence:-)


Thomas Baker wrote:
> Antoine,
> 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
>     date. 
> 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
> tutorials...
> Tom
> 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


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 16:28:33 UTC

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