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

Re: Help on RDF model design

From: Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:07:31 -0400
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020531220731.GA30750@ute.mems-exchange.org>

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 03:31:15PM -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>I do obliquely address this very question in the articles above.  I tend to 
>prefer to point to a resource, which can then be described using vCard, foaf, 
>etc.  It can be a blank node (anonymous resource) or one could use a mailbox 
>to ID it.

But is there a way to future-proof the system?  Say there isn't an
identifying URI for authors, so I put 'dc:creator="Arthur Conan
Doyle"' all over the place.  Six months from now, someone creates
Biographical RDF and defines URIs for historical figures, so Conan
Doyle can now be referenced by a URI.  Should software look at
dc:creator and try to guess if its value looks like a URI, or is the
only choice to issue version 2.0 of the model and try to upgrade all
the 1.0 RDF files?

>  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://..."
>    rev:date="1999-04-14" rev:author="A.M. Kuchling"
>    rev:item="book1" rev:item="book2"/>

That's legal RDF?  (If rewritten to avoid the duplicate XML attribute,
of course.)  Why were Bags introduced at all, then?  Sequences
obviously are needed in order to preserve order, but Bags don't seem
to add anything if property values can be specified multiple times.

(I'll read your articles over the weekend and follow up with any
further questions.  Thanks for pointing them out!)

--amk                                                             (www.amk.ca)
LADY MACBETH: Out, damned spot! out, I say!
    -- _Macbeth_, V, i
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 18:08:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT