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: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:17:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4965D2D2.5060901@w3.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Antoine Isaac wrote:
> 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 ;-)

:-)

Yeah, the non-literal addition makes it more precise indeed. It is a bit
complex but, well, that is the way it is...

Cheers

Ivan


> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
>> 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
>>>
>>
> 

-- 

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 Thursday, 8 January 2009 10:18:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 January 2009 10:18:35 GMT