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

Re: Assumptions about anonymous resources

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 05:54:01 -0400
To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <970656668030325@caramail.com>
From : "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> My thoughts are that the second rdf:description element
> does not specify what resource it describes. Standard RDF
> processors will therefore not be able to figure out its 
> the element in which it is embedded.
> However, you have specific application knowledge that does
> allow you identify the resource it describes. So you 
> write your own processor, that would use that knowledge
> and be aware of the identity of resource being described.
> Whilst you could do that, it doesn't feel like a very 
> solution. What advantage do you get out of using
> RDF in this way?

Because you don't always *know* the URI of that resource.
If I tell you that "my wife is a teacher", what can else 
can you write than :

<rdf:Description about="mailto:pachampi@caramail.com">
 <foo:job> Teacher </foo:job>

If, from another source, you get an URI for my wife,
assuming that I have only one, then you can identify the 
anonymous resource (and its description) to that URI.

You can not express that meta-knowledge/rule with RDF as-
is, but RDF is a *framework*, so what is so unclean about 
it ?
You can always add vocabularies to make it expressible.
(in that case, a class UniqueProperty, subclass of 
rdf:Property, would be useful -- I'm sure it exists in some 
extension to RDFS).

Bote aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 05:54:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:32 UTC