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

Re: Putting context in RDF serialization

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:45:30 -0800
Message-ID: <3A418AEA.C5094865@robustai.net>
To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
CC: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Fine, show me an actual example of in XML of putting three statements in two
different contexts.   Of course, I concede, it can be done ... but I won't
concede it is practical until I can see an actual practical example.   Let's
compare the M&S container way to my proposal, line for line.

Seth Russell

---history---

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> 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 23:40:57 GMT

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