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

Re: silly question about rdf:about

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:46:01 -0400
Message-ID: <043b01c1df0c$1a6e91a0$0e01a8c0@t8000>
To: "David Allsopp" <d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
David,

David Allsopp:
> Uche Ogbuji:
> > Nikita Ogievetsky:
> > > 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".

So just stick to one or another?
Using rtm:indicatedBy and rtm:constitutedBy unambiguous properties
Will allow you to have both nodes in one RDF document.
For example:
:Uche
  :creatorOf :UOWebsite;
  rtm:/indicatedBy http://uche.ogbuji.net
:UOWebsite rtm:/constitutedBy http://uche.ogbuji.net

See more on this in my answer to Sean.

> > > 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...

What do you mean by "confusion"?
Confusion can be good and can be bad.

--Nikita.
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 10:47:04 GMT

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