- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:11:36 -0500
- To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
At 04:45 PM 11/24/2006 +0000, Ian Davis wrote: >On 24/11/2006 16:20, Murray Maloney wrote: >>Dan wrote a GRDDL result that is much more complex than I had hoped, >>but he said that it was an accurate RDF representation of the triple: >> "Stephen King" "is author of" "The Stand". >>I am totally willing to accept the proposition that Dan and I got it >>wrong. I would love >>to see the example that gets it right, and I only hope that I will be >>able to follow it. > >I would suggest this: > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.com/authors#king"> > <ex:isAuthorOf rdf:resource="http://example.com/books#stand" /> ></rdf:Description> Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Thanks for trying. Those URIs tell me nothing. Actually, they tell me "Unable to Connect" And what is the namespace "ex" and how do I find out the meaning of the isAuthorOf property in that namespace? >>This exercise has reinforced my intuition that the Semantic Web is even >>more prone >>to misinterpretation than common English prose embedded within XHTML. My >>intuition >>tells me that >> http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ >>is a web page which conveys the fact that "Stephen King" "is author of" >>"The Stand" > >The problem could be that your statement above conveys more information >than simply "Stephen King" "is author of" "The Stand". Allow me to rephrase in somewhat more pedantic terms: There exists an information resource http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ from which I, a human being with reasonable grasp of the English language, can easily deduce that there exists a novel entitled "The Stand" whose author is "Stephen King". I can also easily deduce that all URIs which begin with "http://www.stephenking.com/" are related to the self-same "Stephen King". I can further and easily deduce that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_King/ is also about the same "Stephen King" >You're also saying that the page at the url you specify states the above >fact. That's the source of the additional complexity. You're stating facts >like (pseudo-rdf ahead): > >http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ "is a" "web page" Well, an Information Resource in Web parlance, so I hope that we can treat that as an already known fact. No extra complexity. >http://www.stephenking.com/pages/works/stand/ "conveys fact" "the fact" All Information Resources, by definition, contain information. No extra complexity there. >"the fact" "has subject" "stephen king" > >"the fact" "has predicate" "is author of" > >"the fact" "has object" "The Stand" On this much we agree. So why is it so hard to get the GRDDL WG, as a representative sample of the Semantic Web community, to agree on how you spell that triple? And why is it even harder to have them agree on a consistent interpretation after the triple has been published? Don't get me wrong. I am really hoping that y'all can answer these questions and help get me to a place where I can read and write RDF well enough to be able to read and write simple and straightforward examples. I am hoping that I can get to place where I can really see the merit in using RDF to convey information. As it is, I find it easier to discover authors and titles in HTML and DocBook than RDF/XML because I can follow my nose to a DTD or Schema whose prose descriptions of elements/properties are far easier to grok than any RDF that I have ever seen. Regards, Murray
Received on Friday, 24 November 2006 18:12:13 UTC