W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: PRIMER: (was: Aaron and Sean's short outline)

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:09:14 -0500
Message-ID: <3C1FBE8A.8FA197C6@mitre.org>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
CC: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, www-archive@w3.org, eric miller <em@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> On 2001-18-12 2:35 PM, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> > I really think this is a nice intro, and I really thought hard both about
> > how topics were developed, and the order they were introduced.
> 
> For reference the intro is here:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/att-0236/01-prime
> rmodel7.html
> 
> (Let us know if there's a newer model.)

Actually, the reference in the mail archive is here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/att-0283/01-primermodel12.html

But it's also the one that's included at the back of the Primer that
Eric has been developing (less some of the diagrams).  
> 
> I have real problems with your style of doing things wrong (confusing people
> with their names, using strings for predicates, etc.) and then fixing them.
> I'm also not to sure of how you treat Web Architecture as tools to use, as
> opposed to a foundation to build on. (Hmm, I wonder if documents from the
> TAG can help here...)
> 
> Anyway, I apparently appear to have read it in a past life (I commented on
> it), but these are just some thoughts,

I know you read the version you cited, I got your comments, acknowledged
them, and tried to address some of them.  If you'll read the version in
the Primer, I don't think you'll find I confuse people with their names
(part of why I did that in the version you read was the way the triples
syntax has us quoting strings used in triples, but that's another
subject).  As far as using strings for predicates (and then "fixing
them"), and related issues, I think I've brought up the fact several
times: 

(a) that I thought there were some benefits to this method of
presentation (like, this is the way ordinary people make statements, and
it'd be nice to see how those statements get translated to RDF concepts
gradually), although I also recognize (and have stated as much) that you
have a valid point about wanting to start off with "pure" RDF from the
beginning (PS:  it would have been "wrong" to state that, for example,
using strings for predicates, or the triples I wrote using them, were
valid RDF, but I don't think I did that). 

(b) that I thought this was a significant issue of presentation order
that needed to be explicitly addressed and decided on.  Part of my point
here is that it hasn't been explicitly addressed or decided on.  Rather,
your material has one order, and my material has a different one.  I
didn't do my presentation differently from yours just to be bloody
minded;  I felt some people might be confused if we expected them to
understand the property/value pair model that RDF uses, *and* the use of
URIs for those properties and values (and subjects), *at the same
time*.  So I started off with what I thought would be more familiar to
most people, and then introduced the URI idea (NB:  URLs for Web pages
are familiar to most people;  URIs for anything and everything aren't). 
Be that as it may, the order you've used has some advantages (and some
disadvantages IMHO);  the order I've used has some advantages (IMHO) and
some disadvantages.  Where does that leave us?  If we're going to work
independently on this material with any degree of coherency in the
result, we have to decide these sorts of things (and also who is likely
to be confused by what). That's what I want to have happen, and if it
does happen, this exchange will have served its purpose.

If we decide to go "URIs all the way" (which I could certainly live
with;  we just need to decide), I'll have to think about what material I
might want to add in order to address some problems I think people might
have with *that* approach.  (I suspect the URI section would have to get
a bit longer, for example).  I would still argue that we need more
examples of statements than we have now.  

I don't understand your point about "Web Architecture as tools to use,
as opposed to a foundation to build on" (???) 

--Frank


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 17:10:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT