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

SV: Schizophrenia: RDF or MXF?

From: Greg FitzPatrick <gf@medianet.org>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 15:28:48 +0200
To: <R.van.Dort@Everest.nl>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBJIFAOLHFMAPPOLHCAEENCPAA.gf@medianet.org>
Good point.  I have always though it unsound to exercise squatter's rights
to such a generic term as "Resource", when "Resources" as used by RDF,
eventually end up describing "Resources" as used by the real world.  But
knowing this list, I'd say you have an uphill battle ahead of you:-)

Greg

> Ämne: Schizophrenia: RDF or MXF?
>
>
> I have been interested in RDF developments and discussions for some time
> now.
> My "entrypoints" were digital libraries, classification, resource
> description, this interest is shifting towards knowledge representation.
>
> I am getting the feeling that there is some schizophrenia in the
> concept of RDF.
> The rest of this message is not the proven result of a
> well-thought alternative for RDF but merely a reflection of an
> uncomfortable feeling.
> I hope the discussion on this item will yield a better scoping on
> the domain.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the recent RDF documents I read the statement that "The goal
> of [the W3C metadata activity and] RDF specifically is to produce
> a language for the
> exchange of machine-understandable descriptions of resources on the Web".
>
> As the name of RDF strongly suggests a relation with resource
> description, I think the relationship with pure metadata
> description is a lot stronger.
> Although resource description is an application area where
> metadata is heavily used, resource description is more specific
> than metadata description.
> Not all resources are Web resources (most are not!), wouldn't it
> be more useful to have a description framework that is designed
> to describe all
> resources?
>
> As with all specifications a proper domain description is a
> primary requirement.
> If this were given more precisely in the RDF specification
> documents it would have been obvious that especially the
> "resource" concept crosses a
> number of conceptual boundaries, causing conceptual problems.
> RDFS defines a resource as follows: "All things being described
> by RDF expressions are called resources."
>
> I will suggest the following (coarse and incomplete) layered
> domain structure:
>
> ==========================================================
> FRAME LEVEL: defines basic frame theory elements
>
> FRAME    SLOT   FACET
>
> ==========================================================
> META LEVEL: defines metamodel elements
>
> NAMESPACE   CLASS  ATTRIBUTE   RELATION   INSTANCE   VALUE
>
> ==========================================================
> ONTOLOGY LEVEL: defines theories, concepts and relations
>
> THEORY    CONCEPT    RELATION
>
> ==========================================================
> DESCRIPTION LEVEL: defines resource descriptors
>
> ==========================================================
> IDENTITY LEVEL: defines virtual identities
>
> ==========================================================
> PHYSICAL LEVEL: the resources themselves
>
> ==========================================================
>
>
> The current RDF specifications suggest that the DESCRIPTION LEVEL
> is its domain while actually the META LEVEL is what RDF is all about.
> The RESOURCE concept in the DESCRIPTION LEVEL (e.g. a book, a
> person) is very different form the RESOURCE concept in the META
> LEVEL (e.g. a class, a
> property).
>
> I would suggest renaming RDF in MXF (Metadata eXchange Framework).
> The term "resource" will have to be reserved for the DESCRIPTION LEVEL.
> This should avoid discussions on URI generation as identities for
> "real" resources are usually assigned by human interaction in
> contrast to nameless
> RDF statements in database-dumps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob van Dort
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 09:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT