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

Re: PICS in RDF: bagid examples, please?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:24:58 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: swick@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20030211122457.GC10373@tux.w3.org>


I have no intention to work on a revision to the specific proposal in that W3C Note.
It was good to show that PICS labels could in theory be mapped mechanistically into
RDF, but I believe now that re-modelling as an RDF (or RDF/OWL) app is the most 
prudent path for PICS->RDF migration. Maybe a revised Note that said something in that
vein -- with lots of examples -- would make sense. Ralph, do you have any views on this?

Dan


* Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> [2003-02-10 23:20-0600]
> Please add some example labels to
> 
> PICS Rating Vocabularies in XML/RDF
> W3C NOTE 27 March 2000
> 
> This Version:
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-rdf-pics-20000327
> Latest Version:
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-pics
>         
> 
> background:
> 
> We're running the RDF Core tests thru cwm.
> discussion:
>   http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-02-11#T05-07-06
> 
> 
> cwm fails on
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/Manifest.rdf#test0002
> 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
> to
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-quoting
> 
> 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
> 
> or
> 
> (2) explain why not.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 07:26:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT