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: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:09:29 -0500
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004101c06b0c$3277de70$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
<Description ID="S1" bagID="context1">
	<foo ID="S2">1</foo>
	<bar ID="S3">2</bar>
	<baz ID="S4">3</baz>
</Description>

<Bag ID="context2">
	<li resource="#S2"/>
	<li resource="#S3"/>
	<li resource="#S4"/>
</Bag>

... and to demonstrate "subcontexts"

<Bag ID="context0">
	<li resource="#context1"/>
	<li resource="#context2"/>
</Bag>

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Seth Russell
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:46 PM
> To: Jonathan Borden
> Cc: Sean B. Palmer; RDF-IG
> Subject: Re: Putting context in RDF serialization
>
>
> 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 Thursday, 21 December 2000 00:04:57 GMT

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