W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

Re: silly question about rdf:about

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:24:31 +0100
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-ID: <10242.1018207471@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Seth Russell said:
> From: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> 
> > >>>Seth Russell said:
> > > And while were at that, why not invent another useful property ...
> > > something to mean 'preferred human friendly name' ... this would be
> > > like a cyc constant, a kif term, or a rdf:label.  The thing that is
> > > different between it and rdf:about (aside from the fact that it would
> > > be human user friendly) is that it can change (be renamed) from time
> > > to time and from system to system.  But in any given system at any
> > > given time  it would be unique.  For a moment let's just call this new
> > > term ':named'.   Nodes so named internally would be tied to
> >>  URI like this:
> > >     [:uri <http://foo/#Dog>;
> > >       :named  "Doggie"].
> 
> > However, rdfs:label already exists, so why not just use that?

Thanks for snipping all my reply and leaving just one line.


> Because rdfs:label is not guaranteed to be a unique name for a node within
> one system (or application memory storage) .. as specified above [1] ... yet
> it can come from the outside world and cannot be ignored.  This is not too
> unusual of a concept, CycL does it.  Such an internal name property is
> useful, because then you can just scribble something to your system without
> haveing to remember namespaces, URI or even include all those annoying
> colons.  For example:

I see, so you want a unique name.  In that case, you need schema
systems such as DAML that have such restrictions.  This isn't going
to get into the core RDF schema at this time.


> {Seth likes Chocolate}.

{} brackets now, was [] above.  Is this significant?

> Then that can be communicated to the outside world in valid RDF\XML just
> fine because it matches with the nodes inside your system where the info
> below is stored:

RDF/XML

> 
> {Seth uri "http://robustai.net/~seth#ThePerson".
>   likes uri "http://robustai.net/verbs/#likes" .
>   Chocolate uri "http://robustai.net/EnglishNouns#Chocolate" .}

This looks like reification into N3 contexts/formulas.  So this is
again beyond-RDF, and interesting but not something happening in the
core RDF work at this time.

Are 'Seth' 'uri' etc URIs, bnodes?  And now you have '.' inside the {}s
Please use a valid N3 or RDF/XML syntax

>  ...  just translate the ':named' to the URI  and output it with a
> 'rdf:about' .. not exactly rocket science. The obvious advantage is that we
> have eliminated the kind of pedantic problems which you have warned me about
> above ... disadvantages ... well I can't think of any ... can you?

There is no :named in the second examples.  And if you want to talk
about atranslations please show the translation in legal RDF/XML such
as some that validates with http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
or N3 that works with Cwm.

The syntaxes you are using or inventing here aren't helping.

> Now obviously this is a API or application choice, it doesn't even need to
> be a standard in RDF.

Not likely at this stage; but maybe at the WebONT language level
or later RDF work.

Dave
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 15:24:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT