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

Re: silly question about rdf:about

From: David Allsopp <d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:27:13 +0100
Message-ID: <3CB17E91.4D369F86@signal.qinetiq.com>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> > What I am saying is that given a statement like this:
> >
> > http://uche.ogbuji.net :characteristics :very-interesting
> >
> > will leave many people puzzled whether I mean that you are a very
> > interesting person or
> > that your website is definitely worth looking at. :-)
> It shouldn't leave least bit puzzled.  It is obviously talking aboout the Web
> site, not the person.

That's not obvious to me.  The statement is talking about the Resource
with the URI "http://uche.ogbuji.net". Reading that statement, one has
no idea whether there is a webpage at that address or whether that
Resource represents a page. Nor do we have any idea what type the
Resource is (other than rdfs:Resource, obviously). We need another
triple using rdf:type to specify what the Resource is.

> > > I don't see that Topic Maps gains anything with this built-in indirection,
> > > except one of the most complex data models I have ever seen for a
> > description
> > > language (puts CIM to shame, I must say).
> >
> > The gain is in avoiding confusing situations like the one that I mentioned
> > above.
> But I don't see the confusion.  RFC 1738, which governs the URI
> http://uche.ogbuji.net makes it clear that this URI locates/identifies the
> document that is retrieved using HTTP and that address.  Why would anyone
> thing it represents a person?

They wouldn't, unless another triple stated that the Resource was of
type "foo:Person" or whatever. But nor should they think it refers to a
webpage, in the context of RDF. You can write perfectly correct and
useful RDF that uses "http://..." URIs, despite there being no actual
webpages at those "addresses".

> > I also do not see how this makes data model complex.
> Maybe I'm just thick, but I just do not come close to understanding Topic
> Maps.  There are just too many moving parts interacting in confusing ways.  I
> must say, though, from observice the discussiuons at KT, that I'm not sure
> anyone really does.

The TM presentation at the Sem Web Working Symposium at Stanford
certainly involved a lot of confusion...



/d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u
m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B
A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div
setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 07:28:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:40 UTC