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

Re: ROR - Resources of a Resource

From: Laurian Gridinoc <laurian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:09:00 +0200
Message-ID: <9782e33504122007095f359e4a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dom Vonarburg <dom@rorweb.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hello,

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:31:10 -0500, Dom Vonarburg <dom@rorweb.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, I've taken a quick peek at your spec and one thing strikes me 
> > as odd; why do you define the type of the described resources as a 
> > literal? Why not make the those classes (like SiteMap, Menu, Contact, 
> > etc) _real_ rdfs classes, and define the type using rdf:type? 
>  
> > I see you mention the type literal being similar to rdf:type and seem 
> > to support both, but why not just use rdf:type? Also, how does the spec 
> > cope with rdf:lang in type literals? 
>   
> The reason for this is simple: to lower the RDF learning curve. ROR is an
> XML and RDF/XML vocabulary. It is designed to be very easy to use by non-RDF
> people, while still providing all the benefits of RDF (and RDF vocabularies)
> to those who are comfortable with it. As people start experimenting with RDF
> through ROR, they will soon appreciate the power of RDF and want to add
> other vocabularies to their ROR documents. 
>   
> The type property will not support rdf:lang, since it does not represent a
> descriptive aspect of the resource. Only defined class names can be used in
> the type property (e.g. Main, Product, SiteMap, etc). 

I'll bring into discussion the Jon Hanna's resource/representation
vocabulary draft [1], which seems closer to the developer point of
view.

Beside composition (similar with dc:hasPart, ror:resource) it has also
criteria for selecting alternative representations.

It would be nice to have in ROR at least alternative representations
and criteria.

[1] http://www.hackcraft.net/rep/rep.xml

Cheers,
-- 
Laurian Gridinoc
Chief Developer
GRAPEFRUIT
www.grapefruit.ro
Received on Monday, 20 December 2004 15:09:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:12 GMT