Structured values

> What about calling it 'blank node reference style' or 'resource reference
> style usage'?  I'd also be quite happy with 'structured property value style
> ...' with a pointer to the RDF primer.
> 
> I'll do some diagrams to illustrate these, especially the 'blank node style'
> or whatever we decide to call it.  Btw I had planned to do lots of node-arc
> diagrams for the guide but didn't have time before the draft was submitted.
> Always planned to do lots of node-arc diagrams.

My personal preference would be to avoid the notion of
"structured value" entirely.  "Blank node" sounds geeky because
it expects people to picture the graphs in their head, while
"style" hints at something a bit less than a modeling choice.

My own inclination would be to call it something in line
with DCMI's use of "related description" [1].  In the syntax
sections, one could explain it as "embedding a related
description".

Tom

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/


On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:49:59PM -0000, Alistair Miles wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> 8. I found myself stumbling over the phrase "Structured
>    Value" as a label for object nodes which are themselves
>    subjects of further assertions (i.e., which themselves
>    have properties).  I recognize that this is due to the
>    particular way "structured value" has been used over time
>    in the context of DCMI.  Others without this historical
>    baggage may not share this reaction.
> 
>    Querying Google for "'structured value' site:w3.org" yields
>    a dozen or so hits from circa 1999 followed by the draft
>    SKOS Core Guide.  Hmm...  One finds "structured property
>    value" explained in, for example, the RDF Primer.  In the
>    SKOS Core Guide, however, the notion of "structured value"
>    is explained less in modeling terms than as a style of XML
>    encoding ("Structured Value Usage Style").  This relates
>    to the point in my previous posting about presenting the
>    RDF/XML serialization syntax ahead of (or instead of)
>    labeled directed graphs.
> 
>    In the DCMI context, Andy Powell et al have clarified
>    the (quite different but historically related) issue of
>    "Dublin Core structured values" by distinguishing between
>    value representations with inherent structure -- e.g.,
>    labelled strings, unlabelled strings, and marked-up text --
>    as opposed to "related descriptions" (see Appendix A in
>    [6]).  What the SKOS Guide calls a "structured value",
>    then, is what the DCMI Abstract Model calls a "related
>    resource description".  To my way of thinking, the phrase
>    "related resource description" is more helpful.
> 
>    If the SKOS Guide is aimed at RDF-literate readers, the
>    concept of "structured value" could perhaps be clarified
>    by explaining first what is meant in modeling terms, citing
>    the RDF Primer and possibly emphasizing that it is about
>    describing a related resource.
> 
>    At any rate, glossing over the model for the sake of
>    emphasizing syntax guidelines seems like a risky strategy
>    -- a potential source of modeling errors on the part of
>    readers looking for syntax recipes.

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu

Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 15:49:44 UTC