W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: In or out of line?

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:17:50 +0200
Message-ID: <014301c47932$5e632ca0$f82d000a@IBMA4E63BE0B9E>
To: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Sure,
(it is actually what i have been doing, but someone was saying that I am
doing it wrong so I thought I should check up on myself)

I am defining what the role is of different stuff  found on a web page.
(so that i can render it more accessibly to the user device and preference)

So for example, I may want to say, "this link has content type of a site map
link",

where  " this link" is the subject and a xpointer to any links to
contacts.html on the site, "has content type"  is the predicate and a "site
map link" is the object.

(I can  then  do fun stuff like assign an access key "s" or  "k" if the user
is a Russian speaker, or render it as an icon of a site map -consistently
across sites...)

now for my check up....

The object "site map link"  is not a literal, ore a URI to some definition
in HTML but is actually a  URI to an instances of a class (or actually a
derived subclass) done in RDF Schema.
This way i can define what a sitemap link is a clear and useful and
extendable way.
e.g.
site map link, is an instance of a standard web link which is a derived
class of link which is a derived class of  content type.

That way , if someone else is using my types, and has never heard of a
sitemap link, they can know that it is a type of standard web link, so they
can treat it like all other standard web links (maybe assign an access key
in  sequence).  I can also use OWL and require of all content types at least
one name and a description.

So back to my triple

 "this link has content type of a site map link"

1,  " this link" is the subject and a xpointer to any links to
contactus.html on the site,
2, "has content type"  is the predicate and is defined as a Property an RDF
schema
3  a "site map link" is the object and is itself an instance of a subclass
all defined in an RDF schema.

On the other hand , my friend, (who is probably brighter then me, so I
should at least entertain the possibility that he is right) is saying I
should change the following:

2, "has content type"  is the predicate and is defined as a CLASS in an RDF
schema
3  a "site map link" is the object and should be defined in an XML
restricted language.

I don't want do this because I think it is less extendable.

Thanks Libby, and keep well

Lisa

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: In or out of line?


>
>
> hi Lisa
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>
> > I have a controversial question hear (ok, maybe it is not that
controversial)
> >
> > I am thinking of using RDF instances from schema   as objects of a
> triple as appose to being used as predicates.
> > The reason I am doing that is because i want the objects themselves
> to have clear relationships, be extendable etc .
>
> Could you give some specific examples of what you want to do?
>
> Libby
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 04:19:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC