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

Re: [namespaceDocument-8] RDF and RDDL

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:53:20 -0400
Message-ID: <004d01c1e229$6862da90$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> >
> > 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.
>

This is precisely my concern. This is exactly how Ron Daniel's note defining
the mapping between XLink and RDF states it should be done. RDDL "purpose"
is XLink "arcrole" which is the Property linking, not the namespace
directly, but the _term_ 'within' the namespace, (identified by the
rddl:resource id) to the related resource. In RDF the purpose is the
Property, the subject should be the term in the namespace, the object a
related resource.

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:56:51 GMT

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