Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

2009/12/1 Hogan, Aidan <aidan.hogan@deri.org>:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
>> For the sake of others.
>>
>> How do you describe and information resource via an RDF graph that is
>> supposed to play well with Linked Data principles?
>
> If I understand the intent of your question, you are asking how an
> information resource should be identified -- i.e., what's a suitable
> URI? To clarify first: what's wrong with -- e.g. -- simply [1]? For me,
> this fits well with [2]. How does it not play well with Linked Data
> principles? Referring back to earlier:
>
>> using [1] as the information-resource URI to represent the document
>> returned is perfectly okay according to linked data principles:
>>
>>    1. Use URIs as names for things [yep]
>>    2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. [yep]
>>    3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using
>> the standards (RDF, SPARQL) [yep]
>>    4. Include links to other URIs so that they can discover more
> things.
>> [not directly applicable]
>
> Cheers,
> Aidan
>
> [1] http://johnbreslin.com/blog/index.php?sioc_type=site
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
>
>

My impression of the entire debacle is that it is designed to make
sure that every document has at least two identifiers so that
reasoning systems do not have to distinguish between details about the
delivery of the document, and details contained in the document. Some
rdf harvesting engines want to be able to say <URL>
<retrievedWithhttpStatusCode> "200", for example, and the flow on
effect is that you now apparently can't use the documents URL for any
other purpose because the extra httpStatusCode triple may get added
into the RDF store without a different graph URI. If the statements
are merged in a single graph, there is no way to separate it after
that point because reasoning engines, in this case description logics,
weren't designed with this multiplicity in mind. Interestingly,
everyone is okay with adding <URL> <retrievedWithhttpStatusCode>
"303", because that particular magic value is judged to be immaterial
to the nature of the URL.

That is just my impression of the underlying cause for this entire
debacle without any of the philosophical details about the nature of
the document etc., that always pop up.

Cheers,

Peter

Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 21:04:52 UTC