W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: [namespaceDocument-8] RDF and RDDL

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:35:01 -0400
Message-ID: <041701c1e226$d8caab80$ac01a8c0@CREST>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: [namespaceDocument-8] RDF and RDDL


> At 01:43 PM 08/04/02 +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >Which links the namespace with an RDF blank node that represents the RDDL
> >directory entry. The directory entry carries properties for RDDL purpose,
> >prose description and related resource. The nature property is attached
to
> >the RDF node that represents the related resource.
>
> The point I keep trying to make is that the properties like
> "nature", "purpose", and "description", are properties <emph>of
> the related resource</emph>, not of the namespace or of the RDDL
> or of the directory entry.  T

"nature" may be, but "purpose" in fact seems to define the relationship
between the namespace and the resource.  "description" may
also define the relationship rather than the related resource.

I suspect the "purpose" should be the Property linking the two.
rddl:Resource is just too vague to be useful, and to specify
a generic relationship and then qualify it (via an intremedite
node) with a property which gives the real relationship
is a form of reification.

timbl
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:34:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT