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

RE: Issue/bug tracking terms in RDFS?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:51:58 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021219165054.0393daa0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <don_raka@hotmail.com>

At 03:52 PM 12/19/02 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote:
>At the moment I'm not sure whether to aim towards using two or three
>vocabularies : people (FOAF); projects (tasks); issues (issues/bugs).

I think it's probably a good thing to use existing vocabs in your overall 
scheme, where they exist and are defined to serve the purpose in the way 
you want.  Modularization of vocabularies seems like a good thing to me.

As you say:
>Bugzilla's userid should be covered by using FOAF, as you have with
>raisedBy, though internally I wonder if there's a good way of assigning URIs
>to users for this. For me this might look something like:
>http://ideagraph.net/xmlns/users/#nick

As for assigning URIs, I do that sometimes.  It can be useful to assign 
URIs when you want to mention the same person several times.  Otherwise a 
blank node can do.  In practice, I find they work pretty much the same.  In 
fact, it's one of the areas I find that RDF data is very much more 
convenient than more prescriptive data formats.

>btw, earlier on I was contemplating using Bugzilla for the back end and
>communicating with it using Ideagraph, which would need some RDB/RDF
>mapping. After looking over the schema  a bit I now reckon it would be
>easier, (and potentially a lot more useful) to stick to RDF at the backend
>(Jena ModelDB?, perhaps using the NetAPI) with the possibility of using
>Ideagraph at the front and/or a HTML form (from hell) like Bugzilla's.

 From my experience, I'd say that using Jena ModelDB as a back end is a 
good plan.  I believe it would take very little work to link my stuff to 
Jena in this way (I just haven't got round to doing it).

Something else I haven't properly exploited in my own issue tracking work 
is use of inference rules. E.g. using Cwm to calculate things that can be 
deduced, rather than entering the same information in different ways, which 
is what I do at the moment.  Again, it would be dead easy to do (at least 
for for some of the duplicated information I've noticed), but I just 
haven't got round to doing that yet.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 11:59:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT