W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

PICS in RDF: bagid examples, please?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:20:31 -0600
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, swick@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-id: <1044940831.2333.192.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

Please add some example labels to

PICS Rating Vocabularies in XML/RDF
W3C NOTE 27 March 2000

This Version:
Latest Version:


We're running the RDF Core tests thru cwm.

cwm fails on
because cwm doesn't grok bagid.

We're trying to decide between
(1) adding bagid support in cwm
(2) requesting that bagid be removed
	or at least deprecated
(3) documenting cwm's lack of support
	for bagid

We can't find *any* uses of bagid. We
can hardly remember what it's doing there
in the first place.

I seemed to remember it was motivated
by pics...

indeed, this suggests the PICS at thingy
should be used with bagid...

  1.1. Document Properties

  The PICS 'at' option is a higher-order relation between
  the document being rated and the rating statement. As
  such, it is modelled as a property of the (reified)
  rating statement.

but an example would make it many times clearer.

I actually think the current reification design
is a big use/mention bug... In N3, you can say

	:picture1 :depicts { :u1 a :Unicorn }.

which does not assert the existence of a unicorn.
No can do with RDF reification.

I suggest that pics:at should await a solution

but perhaps PICS doesn't require the ability
to qualify a statement without making it,
nor to qualify statements without asserting
that the URIs used in the statement denote
things that exist.

In sum, please either
(1) clarify, using examples that PICS/RDF
needs (or at least: motivates) bagid


(2) explain why not.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 00:21:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC