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

RE: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:41:33 -0700
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOCEEFEPAA.howardk@fatdog.com>

I'll probably keep the <bibterm:bib> anonymous, just because the original
bib isn't globally identified. Ditto for the books. Also in keeping with my
idea of staying as close to the intent of the original as possible, I'm
tempted to omit any type information in the RDF since there's none in the
XML.

Thank you for your input. It's got me mulling about an area in RDF where I
still have some conceptual difficulties: a bib is an instance, a real thing.
A book is an instance, a real thing. An author is an instance, a real thing.
How is a bib having books in some substantive way different from a book
having authors? Why do they need different relationships to describe them?
I'm not asking for an answer; I'm just pointing out it's extremely useful
for me to ponder on such questions to help build a better mental model of
how things work.

Certainly in the original XML, bib/book nesting doesn't tell you any more
about the specific relationship between bib and book than book/author
nesting tells you about the relationship between book and author. As your
example shows, RDF lets you describe the relationship exactly. A major plus
for RDF.

I totally agree with the last point you made in your prior email: the
visualization capability of the RDF Validator is immensely useful. I'm very
graphically oriented, and often looking at the visual rendition of the graph
is the only way for me to really see what's going on. I use it all the time.

Thanks again,
Howard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Thomas B. Passin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:54 PM
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?
>
>
>
> I wrote -
> >
> > Howard Katz wrote:
> > ...
>
> > You also have another problem, because normally a "bib" element in the
> > source should turn into a *type* (or class) called "bib", but you have
> > it turning into an instance.  It is unlikely that is what you really
> > want to do.  You need to come up with a unique uri that identifies the
> > specific bib in question.
>
> If, OTOH, you do want the bib to be anonymous (have no global uri), you
> could modify my example just a touch, like this -
>
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:bibterm="http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/"
> >    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/"
> >    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
>  >   <!--bibterm:bib rdf:about="http://www.book-stuff.com/bib/bib2501"-->
>      <bibterm:bib> <!-- now it's an anonymous resource -->
>
> The rest would remain unchanged.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom P
>
> --
> Thomas B. Passin
> Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
> http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
>
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 15:40:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT