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

Re: Handling bad RDF descriptions

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 01:43:51 -0500 (EST)
To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.o.se>
cc: RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@cpe.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001050142330.13534-100000@tux.w3.org>
Ummm, what about saying what type of content you are looking for using HTTP
content negotiation. I thought the idea was that it could handle such
questions transparently, although an implementation is liekly to have
explicit URI's for each content type as well as a URI for the resource as a

Charles McCN

On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Jonas Liljegren wrote:

  Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
  > 3) About services
  > Differentiating the URL and the URI of the service may be a good thing,
  > but is it sufficient ?
  > What about the service "http://www.cpe.fr/cgi-bin/rose"
  > returning some classical piece of french poetry ?
  > I can state
  >   <Description about="http://www.cpe.fr/cgi-bin/rose">
  >     <author> Champin </author>
  >     <language> Perl 5 </language>
  >   </Description>
  > but the URL will return a documennt with some self-describing RDF inside
  >     <author> Ronsard </author>
  >     <form> Sonnet </form>
  > what URL does this reffer, if not "http://www.cpe.fr/cgi-bin/rose" ??
  > QUESTION 3 : generally, an URI can have more than one meaning !
  > (not only container/content or describee/description)
  > How will we deal with that ?
  > PS : I'm sure the RDF community could provide me with half a dozen unambiguous URIs,
  > one for the service, one for Ronsard's sonnet, and so on...
  > But I'm not so sure all RDF users could agree on all that,
  > so we WILL have to handle polysemy of URIs...
  Yes. There should be one URI for the service and another URI for the
  sonnet.  The service author could make this more intuitive by using
  clear names:
    Service URI:  http://www.cpe.fr/cgi-bin/poetry
    Sonnet URI:	http://www.cpe.fr/cgi-bin/poetry?rose
  I can imagine that there will be tons of confusingly mixed up, badly
  thought out RDF descriptions of resources.  But I do think that
  applications can be instructed to handle this in many ways.  Deduction
  engines could be built to make intelligent guesses of how a more
  complete and correct description would look like, based on faulty
  By collecting many versions of the same thing and by using quality
  ratings and other logic, useful information should be extracted.
  And I hope that badly expressed descriptions will be substituted with
  better versions. Anyone can do the rewrite. They will just have to
  earn the public trust, to go on and be used instead of the original
  This is the future role of the RDF-quality rating services.
  / Jonas  -  http://paranormal.o.se/perl/proj/rdf/schema_editor/

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2000 01:43:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:28 UTC