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

Re: [namespaceDocument-8] Proposal: "Namespace Document" = RDF

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 17:20:11 +0200
To: ext Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8AEA34B.10577%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-28 20:41, "ext Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
wrote:

> At 12:13 PM +0200 2/18/02, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
>> I would like to propose an alternative interim treatment which is
>> similar in nature to the RDDL approach, and in fact would adopt
>> the RDDL vocabulary in its realization, but which would be more
>> forward-looking towards a time whtn such knowledge would not be
>> tied to HTTP for retrieval and not expressed only in XML, but would
>> be accessible by more generalized, transparent means and have an RDF
>> foundation.
>> 
> 
> What would this do that RDDL can't or doesn't do? Can you give us an
> example of such a document so we can see better what you intend?
> Would your document format be easily read by humans when loaded into
> a browser?
> 
>... 
>> And the descriptions about each resource would be specfic to that
>> resource, not the namespace, which has no real properties apart
>> from punctuation and providing a point of intersection for the
>> trully interesting resources described in such an RDF namespace
>> document.
>> 
> 
> Maybe, there's something here at this point that RDDL can't do. Can
> you elaborate? It's not self-evident.

Here's what I'd like to be able to do:

For each term grounded in the namespace, define the
functional vocabularies to which it belongs, and
the semantics which are consistent across all of
its uses.

For each functional vocabulary, define the models
(e.g. doctype, KR ontology, etc.) utilizing that
vocabulary (in whole or in part) and the semantics
which are consistent across all of its uses.

For each model, define the schemas available for
validating instances of that model (e.g. DTD,
XML Schema, RELAX NG, RDF Schema, etc.).

For each model, define stylesheets, software
components, and other auxilliary resources which
facilitate consumption of instances of that model.

And for all such resources above, relate any
arbitrary information, either for humans or
machines, which I feel is relevant to the understanding
and use of those resources.
 
>> Furthermore, such an approach permits applications to maintain
>> local knowledge bases about known resources, possibly also caching
>> web retrieved knowledge for offline use, or augment that with any
>> number of dedicated registries, providing a more flexible,
>> scalable knowledge based solution -- hampered only temporarily by
>> transparent, global web-accessibility of such knowledge, yet
>> architecturally sound both now and in the the future when such
>> accessibility issues are resolved.
> 
> OK, this I grant RDDL can't do. I just tend to doubt RDF can do it
> either. This might be worth considering when and if the accessibility
> issues are solved. Until then it's not a good reason to introduce
> excessive complexity that doesn't buy any extra power.

What constitutes "excessive complexity" is of course a
matter of opinion.

I personally find RDF less complex than XLink ;-)

And I find the ability to separate the representation of
knowledge from the method of access to be a very good
thing and well worth the trivial cost of a little bit of
RDF embedded in RDDL.

>> Such an interim solution would meet the immediate needs of specialised,
>> constrained HTTP based solutions while facilitiating and encouraging
>> work towards a more generalized, long term solution.
>> 
> 
> RDDL is in no way limited to HTTP. To convince me that it needs
> replacing with RDF,

Since my original posting, I have come to appreciate the benefit
of having a "hybrid" encoding for namespace documents which would
serve the needs of both humans and machines. To that end, a refinement
of RDDL, using XHTML to express knowledge intended for humans and
RDF to express knowledge intended for machines (and humans, given
a reasonable style sheet) would be more optimal than either RDDL
(as presently defined) or RDF alone.

> you'll need to show how the document format is
> inadequate. 

See above. RDDL as presently defined does not appear to
be able to describe arbitrary resources denoted by URIs,
but only to describe a "namespace", which is odd, since
there's not much one can actually say about punctuation...

> The protocol issues are completely orthogonal to the
> decision between RDDL and RDF.

I never thought otherwise.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 10:18:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:05 GMT