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

Re: FRODO RDFSViz (RDF Schema visualization tool) (rdf:resource vs. resource issue, again)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:43:46 -0500
Message-ID: <39CFB902.9EAFAB49@w3.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:07:41 +0200
> From: Michael Sintek <sintek@dfki.uni-kl.de>
> Subject: FRODO RDFSViz (RDF Schema visualization tool)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> today we released the first downloadable version (binary and source,
> command line and servlet versions) of our FRODO RDFSViz tool
> which provides a visualization service for ontologies represented
> in RDF Schema.

Cool! I'm glad to see folks playing with RDF visualization,
especially using graphviz. I've done a little hacking of
my own with that stuff, but I didn't really get anywhere.

> An online demo (Java servlet) and the download are available at:
> 
>         http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/frodo/RDFSViz/
> 
> Comments, bug reports, ideas for improvements etc. are welcome.

Bug report:

I tried it out on

	http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/algernon.rdf

which I think is conforming RDF, but it complained
about my use of resource= (as opposed to rdf:resource):

Internal Exception occured:
dfki.frodo.tools.rdf_schema_grapher.RDFSchemaGrapher$Exception: Fatal
Error: [SM] Property element
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf has invalid attribute
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#resource. Only rdf:resource is
allowed. (line 16, column 6)

The relevant excerpt is:

    <s:subClassOf
    resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/hs78/algernon#things" />

The way I read the RDF 1.0 spec, this syntax is OK.

But lots of folks have evidently not read it that way.

In the issues list, this is describe ala:

[[[
Known issues that aren't written up yet: 1. rdf:resource vs
resource.
]]]

	-- RDF Issue Tracking
	http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/
	Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:00:35 GMT

I raised it formally a while ago:

rdf:resource="..." vs. resource="..." Dan Connolly (Wed, Apr 26 2000) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/thread.html

but I see no response from the editors.

I'd sure like a simple "yes, that looks like a problem"
response, with perhaps a link from the errata
	http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/errata

By the way... in my 26 Apr message, I suggested
rdf:resource= as the general case, and resource=
as a short-hand for rdf:resource on elements associated
with the RDF 1.0 namespace. I take that suggestion back.
After working with the RDF syntax in XSLT and building
an XML schema for it
	http://www.w3.org/2000/07/rdf.xsd
I see no reason not to regard all propertyElts as
having a local resource="uriRef" attribute.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 16:45:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT