W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2008

RDF UI Vocab for the Linked Data era; is Fresnel a good choice?

From: alan gebert <alan.gebert@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 18:53:06 -0300
Message-ID: <c4cccf6a0801051353m3a5f6032ubb22ed97de199c5d@mail.gmail.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org

Hi all,

I have been going over the idea of implementing Fresnel for a
particular mobile technology but, before taking the leap, I need to
ask big brother the golden question.

Given that some water has run under the bridge, is Fresnel still a good choice?
On the LOD world... What is the state of the art on RDF UI?


PD: Off the top of my head, one technical observation regarding fresnel:

1. Inline FSL/SPARQL expressions use qnames ( foaf:name ) instead of
extended IRIs. I assume that the prefix scope is the document that
contains them, but it implies that, to expand them correctly, I need
to do one of the following:
- Make the parser aware of these expressions ( ex: XSD datatype
fresnel:fslSelector ) so it can correctly expand the qnames at parse
time
- Store the required provenance info and the prefix set so the Fresnel
engine can make the expansion later

The latter seems easier to do... but still feels a bit "odd" and I can
see myself running into some trouble. I know some parts of my current
framework won't respect that completely ( smushing, inference, remote
parsing... a la Triplr ) as they treat the literal as an obscure rdf
term and may replace "foaf" for "p1" without asking anyone for
permission.

OTOH, including the prefix list everywhere is not a clean solution either....
I propose defining a new property that travels along with the group: (
fresnel:prefixes "foaf:<...>, foo:<..>" ).


Thanks,
Al
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2008 21:53:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:20 GMT