- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:00:56 +0000
- To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Cc: Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Yves, Remember that Aldo was looking for something that allows clients to make smart decisions about when to follow a link out of an RDF document. He was not looking for something to describe the contents of RDF datasets on a high level. More comments inline. On 4 Jan 2009, at 14:28, Yves Raimond wrote: >> Yves, the proposal above addresses this. There would be a triple: >> >> :birthPlace link:subjectListProperty :morePersonsBornHere . >> >> This triple can be either directly in the :New_York description, or >> in the vocabulary (where you'd find it by >> dereferencing :morePersonsBornHere). >> >> The triple tells clients that they should follow >> the :morePersonsBornHere link if they are interested in :birthPlace >> triples. So, autodiscovery is solved. > > Yes, it does work, but only for simple property lists. What about > "find here persons born in NYC between 1945 and 1975" ? I don't understand how you would express this using your proposal. From what I've seen, you propose to provide a characteristic example subgraph of the linked document. How can you express range constraints using a subgraph? >>> But perhaps the approach I proposed when we discussed the >>> void:example >>> property could work, in exactly the same way as in [1]. >>> >>> In the representation of :New_York, we could write something like >>> (in N3): >>> >>> <http://example.org/persons_nyc.rdf> void:example { :al_pacino >>> :birthPlace :New_York }. >> >> N3 formulae cannot be expressed in RDFa or RDF/XML. How would you >> serialize this in practice? > > As in the post I refered to: you can point to http://example.org/dataset-example.rdf > where you put these example triples. Then, to decide if I want to follow any of those links, I need to do an extra HTTP request to retrieve a single-triple document. I think we can do better than that. I also don't like the idea of having to potentially provide an extra example document *per link*. >> As far as I can remember, all the examples that people have given >> could be addressed with a simple property-based approach. Has >> anyone mentioned a use case that goes beyond looking for a single >> property? If not, then what does the additional complexity of this >> proposal buy us in practice? > > The example mentioned in my post uses more than one property, or the > exampl above. The example in your post was about describing datasets. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of splitting up the RDF description of an individual resource. >> (I note that the situation here is different from what you >> described in [1]. There it was about annotations on a dataset >> level. Here it is about annotating links that occur within many or >> all individual documents of a dataset.) > > A RDF document is a dataset, and can be described as such :-) This isn't about what *can* be done, it's about what's *useful* to do. I think that you have an interesting approach to describing RDF datasets, but I don't think that it is a good solution to the problem of hinting at the content that is available behind an RDF link. Best, Richard >>> [1] http://blog.dbtune.org/post/2008/06/12/Describing-the-content-of-RDF-datasets
Received on Sunday, 4 January 2009 19:01:39 UTC