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).

Cheers,
Danny.
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 15:59:37 GMT

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