- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:22:07 -0000
- To: <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
At the last meeting I accepted an action to have a closer look at the Stephen King example in the spec http://www.w3.org/2006/11/22-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05 The example expresses in RDF, the fact that the resource identified by http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ Has a title "The Stand" and has a foaf:maker (an agent that made this thing) who is the person that is the foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf the resource identified by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King/ Or more simply that The resource identified by http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ has a title "The Stand" and was made by Steven King. When I point my browser at this url I get back an html page describing a novel entitled "The Stand" written by Steven King. This web page has considerably fewer words than a novel. It has a title element in the header whose content is "StephenKing.com". It also has "The Stand (1978)" as text on the page formatted in a way that might cause it to be interpretted as a title. As far as I can tell there is no redirect when I do the GET on this URL. I think there are murky waters here, related to a tag issue (http-range-14) and complex modelling issues concerning the distinction between abstract works, expressions of those works and manifestations of those expressions. Now it may be that the strictly speaking the example in the spec can be successfully defended as being correct, however I think it is confusing because folks reading it might think that http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ Identifies a resource that is a description of a novel, that the title of this description is not "The Stand" and that this description was not written by Stephen King and therefore that the RDF in the example is false, undermining the confidence the reader in the specification. I suggest that in this example in the spec it would better to avoid such potential confusion and to draft a different example that will be more intuitively correct to the reader. There are several ways the current example could be modified to be correct. One would be to use a URL that clearly does identify the novel; another would be to introduce another node into the graph so that both the novel and its description are represented there. A question for the WG is whether it is worth the effort of drafting such an alternative? Brian
Received on Friday, 24 November 2006 10:22:20 UTC