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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:09:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4965D0EF.8000105@few.vu.nl>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Ivan,

Thanks for the advice!

But I'm afraid 'general RDF node'is not enough. As specified in the RDF concepts, this include literals:
> A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI reference, or URIref), a literal, or blank

So I would rather use 'general non-literal RDF node'
I hope this does not sound too complex... It's a pity that no one ever re-used this Primer's 'structured RDF value thing'? Experts should read the primers more often ;-)


> 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:-)
> Ivan
> 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
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 10:10:35 UTC

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