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

Re: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:49:32 -0400
Message-ID: <414E372C.1030502@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org


Matt Halstead wrote:
> 
> This is a good example of something I have wondered about.  If in fact 
> one wanted to create an RDF schema to describe such a structure, then it 
> would be nice to be able to describe that the range of bibterm:book is 
> any resource that has the properties bibterm:year and dc:title.  Is it 
> possible to do this without making a class to represent that, or using 
> the syntax and semantics of OWL?  I.e. is it possible in plain RDF/RDF-S 
> to say that the properties of bibterm:year and bibterm:title are 
> sufficient for a resource to be a valid instance?  

Well, yes and no.  RDF/RDFS has no inherent semantics that means what 
you are asking for - that's the job of, i.e., owl - so in that sense, 
"no".  OTOH, you can define any "terms" you like and use them that way. 
  In that sense, "yes".  But they won't be standard and so they won't be 
understood by standard processors.

> if not, then perhaps 
> it is worth considering a non-anoymous resource for this relationship so 
> that one can still define the architecture of the bibterm:book property 
> in RDF/RDF-S semantics.
> 

You can give an anonymous node an rdf:type without having to give it an 
identifying uri.  So you can actually have both ways in this case.

-- 
Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 01:46:38 GMT

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