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

RE: Why contexts? (was: Klyne Contexts: 5.3-5.5 resources, languages and frames)

From: Manos M. Batsis <manosb@profile.gr>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:30:53 +0200
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HOEKJKBDBAHOEMPDNCJDOELHCBAA.manosb@profile.gr>
Hi,

I'm trying to find some time to read about RDF for some time now, without very good
results. I enjoy reading the list though, but
I don't always have time to fully grasp the meaning so I give up. I thought I should give a
try and say a word for something that made me click: (forgive me if I really don't have a
real touch with the subject)


Graham and Pierre made me think that what we really need is a way of describing data that
are not always static. But what really stroke me is the need of a non static description.
What if we could give a URL instead of an object (description in my way of thinking)? Or
maybe, we could give a URL for every part of a triple. That would be extremely useful in
say, software developing. The power of referencing to a triple in code without actually
knowing it. Or just describing data that just don't stay the same, or don't really know
what the data and description will really be. Please tell me if I get this right. I just
couldn't constrain myself. Hopefully, my poor English are understandable.

Kindest regards,

Manos Batsis
Interactive Media Director
BeCom : A Profile Company
http://www.becom.gr
http://www.profile.gr
e-mail: manosb@profile.gr
Tel: +301 3270500,+301 3270565
Fax: +3013221268



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne wrote:
> One of my reasons for using contexts is that it gives me a framework for
> making statements that do not depend on detailed ontological
> structure.  Thus, in the 1st example you cite, I know that my car has an
> engine and a body without necessarily knowing how they are ontologically
> related to the car as a whole, and I can make meaningful statements about them.

Interesting point.
Actually, I too had problems with the Car example, but that makes sense...

I have another idea since a few days, which may be an alternate solution :
the use of "anonymous" resources (which mean for me: I know there is a resource here, but I
don't know its URI).

We can use anonymous resources as subject or object of a statement.
Why not as the predicate ??

  [my:Car] --[ ]--> [my:Engine]

I have a car, I have an engine, I know there is a relation between them,
but I have no word for that...

 what do you RDFers think of that ?

  Pierre-Antoine

>
> >One example says, in part:
> >
> >       [MyCar] --isa--> [FordEscort]
> >       [     ] --rdfc:asserts-->
> >         {
> >         [TheBody] ----color-----> "red"
> >         [TheEngine] --capacity--> "1600cc"
> >         }
> >
> >
> >The normal way to do this would be:
> >
> >  S1: [my:Car] --type--> [FordEscort]
> >  S2: [my:Car] --body--> [my:Body]
> >  S3: [my:Body] --color--> [red]
> >  S4: [my:Car] --engine--> [my:Engine]
> >  S5: [my:Engine] --capacity--> [my:Capacity]
> >  S6: [my:Capacity] --unit--> [cc]
> >  S7: [my:Capacity] --value--> "1600"
>
> By comparison, this form of description requires that the ontological
> relationship between the components is known.
Received on Friday, 24 November 2000 18:32:26 GMT

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