W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

RE: Putting context in RDF serialization

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:37:08 -0500
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003d01c06aff$4bc3ecf0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
I am more and more convinced that contexts can be completely supported
through the M&S in its current form through the use of containers.
Subcontexts can be implemented via containers containing containers.
Containers can contain statements and containers can have URIs, so
statements can be made about containers. Nothing more is needed in M&S
(though APIs might explicitly support contexts as containers).

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

Seth Russell wrote:
>
>
> "Sean B. Palmer" wrote:
>
> > Good idea. In the context Schema, we could define further context models
> > for whatever assertions we have. For example, in your model:-
> >
> > [contextUri3]--subContextOf-->[contextUri1]
> > [contextUri3]--subContextOf-->[contextUri2]
> > [contextUri3]--contextFor-->[id1,http:..../Lassila, Creator,
> "Ora Lassila"]
> >
> > This is a Schema itself, but one that points "backwards" from the actual
> > context Schemas.
>
> Just for the sake of clarity, I think I'd better define what I
> mean by schema.
> I've been calling everything that hangs off the property nodes
> "schema".   In
> other words in :
>
> [s1, p1, o1]
>
> [p1, p2, o2]
> ....
>
> Everything associated by the same p? subject node is (to me) a schema.
> Hopefully I haven't been playing too fast a free with the term.
>  If you buy
> that, then you would need to admit that my context nodes are not schema
> nodes.   There would, of course, be two schema nodes that applied
> to context:
>
> [contextFor, p?, o?] ...
> and
> [subContextOf, p?, o?] ...
>
> > As such, contextUri3 could itself be the context of
> > another context Schema:-
> >
> > [contextUri4]--subContextOf-->[contextUri3]
> >
> > In that case would it automatically import the "contextFor"
> triple that is
> > included in contextUri3 for the purposes of the RDF code you made?
>
> Yes that was the idea.
>
> > In other
> > words, would this example have the same context as yours(?):-
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> >   <RDF
> >     xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> >     xmlns:s="http://description.org/schema/"
> >     contextFor="contextUri4"
> >    >
> >     <Description about="http://www.w3.org/Home/Lassila">
> >       <s:Creator>Ora Lassila</s:Creator>
> >     </Description>
> >   </RDF>
> >
> > If so, then it's lucky you use contextFor in the literal sense
> rather than
> > just pointing out a node!
>
> Huh?  I meant "contextUri(n)" to stand for some URI that points
> out a node.
>
> > In summary, if these are your proposals, then I think that they are very
> > useful indeed and should probably be added as RDF serialization
> properties.
>
> To be honest, most of this I got from Graham.  But Graham didn't
> specify how it
> was to be serialized.  If we have to specify the context of
> information by RDF
> bags and reified statements, then I think it will be just too tedious for
> practical use .. so why not just imply all the details by a very
> simple easily
> understood syntax.
>
> Thanks for the dialogue ...
> Seth Russell
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 22:32:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT