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

SV: API for RDF: locutor

From: Greg FitzPatrick <gf@medianet.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:19:10 +0100
To: "Jeff Sussna" <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Jean Marc VANEL" <jean-marc_vanel@effix.fr>
Message-ID: <NCBBJIFAOLHFMAPPOLHCEEJFCNAA.gf@medianet.org>

Might I ask the origin of the word "locuter"?

Greg


> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]För Jeff Sussna
> Skickat: den 7 mars 2000 20:48
> Till: 'Jean-Marc Vanel'; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; Jean Marc VANEL
> Ämne: RE: API for RDF: locutor
>
>
> 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.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----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
> statement:
>
>   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:
>
>
> <looks>ugly</looks>
>
>
> And another Web site S2 says about the same person:
>
>
> <looks>handsome</looks>
>
>
> My RDF application can decide, with a knowledge of which of
> locutors  S1 and
> S2 is trusted most.
>
>
>
> --
> <person>
>   <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
> folder)</a>
> </person>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2000 07:19:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT