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

RE: Issue/bug tracking terms in RDFS?

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:47:32 +0100
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <don_raka@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFKEIJIOAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

>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.

I suspect I'll probably have to assign URIs anyway - the kind of
graph/subgraph stuff I'm aiming towards currently relies on making different
(Jena) Model instances, which I reckon would cause problems (or at least
inefficiencies) if I had to connect bnodes across models. I feel myself
being dragged kicking towards a relational model...

>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.

Yep, I'm aiming to use inferencing but only once I'm reasonably comfortable
with the modelling/representation - there's a lot of potential for bugs
wearing masks otherwise. I'll be very interested in hearing how you get on
(I've barely looked at cwm).

Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 15:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC