W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

Re: RX - another RDF in XML format [WAS: Re: a simpler form of rdf xml]

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:07:10 +0100
Message-Id: <7B39C151-6949-11D9-B537-000A95D9FA7A@bblfish.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: jsled@asynchronous.org

Heh! Really interesting. Thanks. :-)

This makes me want to see if I can formalize the serialization format I 
was proposing. As with yours and with the really interesting proposal 
by Sergy
Melnik [1], (and it turns out Tim Berners Lee [2]!) I was proposing 
that all
xml elements be links. Cool.

===============CURRENTLY BROKEN=====================================

But I think mine is both a lot simpler and a lot more general. Because 
all I do is
add that xml element attributes be treated the same way.
   - The subject of the attribute relation is the object of its element's
     relation object.
   - The object of the attribute relation is a blank node _attObj
   - The blankNode _attObj is related to the value of the attribute by an
     rdf:string relation.

    <entry href="http://bblfish.net/blog/">

    is represented as
    _something :entry _entry_obj .
    _entry_obj :href _href_obj .
    _href_obj rdf:string "http://bblfish.net/blog" .

And I apply the same principle to the xml elements text content, if it 
has any:
The text is related to the object of the containing xml node's relation 
by an
rdf:string relationship.

     <entry href="http://bblfish.net/blog/">
     some text

     is represented as
     _entry_obj rdf:string "some text"

And that is all I specify.

----------------------That'a All------------------------

All the rest is to be defined in an ontology.

1. The RX format

So I think your transformation just turns out to be special case of 
what I
have specified. Namely one in which you have limited for example all the
attributes to only have uris as values.

2. TimBl's proposal

This is how we can now explain TimBl's [2] rdf:for, rdf:about, ...

  - rdf:about is an identity property. It relates a node to itself. It is
   functional, inverse functional, symmetric and transitive. *Any* other
   such property would do equally well.

   <frontm rdf:about="uri:urn:theBook">The Varieties of 

   has the following

   _subj :frontm  _obj .
                  _obj rdf:about _about .
                                 _about rdf:string "uri:urn:theBook" .
                  _obj rdf:string "The Varieties of Reference"

   That's all!

   Now because rdf:about is an identity relation the above graph is 
   to one where _obj is replaced with _about, ie:

   _subj :frontm  _about .
                  _about rdf:string "uri:urn:theBook" .
                  _about rdf:string "The Varieties of Reference" .

   !OOPS! This does not work. Because we have two rdf:string relations 
on about.
And I wanted to conclude that because

   _about rdf:type <xxx:anyUri> .

   that we could deduce that _about == <uri:urn:theBook>

   So my proposal does create a problem here... Perhaps I have to change
  the way I relate _about to the string content of the frontm xml tag. 
I have to create a rdf:stringContent relation between _about and
"The Varieties of Reference" so that the xml turns out to be:

  _subj :frontm  _about .
                 _about rdf:string "uri:urn:theBook" .
                 _about rdf:stringContent "The Varieties of Reference" .

and perhaps we just cannot deduce from

    _about rdf:stringContent "The Varieties of Reference"
    _about rdf:type <rdf:anyUri>


   _about == <the Varieties of Reference>

which would be good.

but then that would limit one of the conclusions I thought I could draw
with constructs such as


which I was hoping would turn out into

    _subj :id _obj .
              _obj rdf:stringContent "uri:urn:theBook" .

	and knowledge that

	_obj rdf:type xxx:anyUri .

     to conclude that

     _subj :id  <uri:urn:theBook> .

On 17 Jan 2005, at 23:46, Josh Sled wrote:

> I wrote up in a bit more detail some of the ideas I was jabbering about
> last week.
> http://asynchronous.org/rx/
> It's yet-another RDF-in-XML format.  In short, it turned out to be
> nearly identical to Sergey Melnik's Simplified Syntax for RDF [1], 
> which
> I had not seen before.
> I've briefly described how RX compares to the many other RDF-in-XML
> formats along the same [and different] lines, which was quite
> interesting in and of itself.
> ...jsled
> [1] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/syntax.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 13:24:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:55 UTC