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

RE: API for RDF: locutor

From: Stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:48:35 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

this point was already discussed on the list.
Have a look http://www-db.Stanford.EDU/~stefan/updates.html
The first section:  "Tracing RDF statements" provides a summary of the
mailings and links to them (but contrarily to the consensus found on the list
i'am still convinced "locutors" are fundamental and should go into the 
and thus into the API.)


At 11:47 AM 3/7/00 -0800, you wrote:
>A very interesting point. I think you have identified another in a whole
>universe of issues RDF doesn't explicitly address, which has to do with
>querying and manipulation of RDF objects. RDF does provide the
>infrastructure to support statements about statements, so there is no
>problem creating an RDF object that identifies the locutor of the statements
>in question. But there must be some system/API/protocol in place to enforce
>the presence and accessibility of such meta-statements.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jean-Marc Vanel [mailto:jmvanel@free.fr]
>Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 11:43 PM
>To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org; Jean Marc VANEL
>Subject: API for RDF: locutor
>David Megginson <david@megginson.com> write on 2000-02-25 :
>Unfortunately, it's not about triples.  The only way to discover the
>true RDF data model is to reverse-engineer it from the XML, and it
>turns out that there are at least six components (not three) in each
>   subject
>   subjectType (global id, local id, URI pattern)
>   predicate
>   object
>   objectType (literal text, literal XML markup, reference)
>   objectLang
>These are not simply syntactic artifacts -- it's information that
>*must* be exposed through any RDF API ...
>There's yet another very important item that is implicit in any RDF set of
>descriptions: it's the locutor. I mean by locutor the individual or
>organisation who makes these descriptions. But we don't have direct access
>to the locutor, except by a possible dc:Creator property. But in turn a
>dc:Creator property points to a name, possibly not unique, or to a mail
>adress or home page, possibly obsolete. This subject on the identity,
>uniqueness, persistence of a resource could take us far away... The obvious
>design solution is that the locutor IS the URL (not URI here!) where our RDF
>set of descriptions appears in.
>So if a Web site S1 says about someone:
>And another Web site S2 says about the same person:
>My RDF application can decide, with a knowledge of which of locutors  S1 and
>S2 is trusted most.
>   <firstName>Jean-Marc</firstName>
>   <lastName>Vanel</LastName>
>   <project>Worlwide Botanical Knowledge Base -
>       making botany available on Internet
>     <a href=" http://wwbota.free.fr/ <http://wwbota.free.fr/> " >site</a>
>   </project>
>   <a href=" http://jmvanel.free.fr/ <http://jmvanel.free.fr/> >home page</a>
>   <a href=" mailto:jmvanel@free.fr <mailto:jmvanel@free.fr> ">mail
>(eventually put "wwbota" in subject to route your mail in relevant
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2000 16:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:29 UTC