Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

Henry Story wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to a universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information from data, such that:
>>
>> <x-sasha> :animalname "sasha" ; :created "2011...." .
>>
>> was read as:
>>
>> Animal(<x-sasha>) :animalname "sasha" .
>> Document(<x-sasha>) :created "2011...." .
>>
>> the ability to do this could be pushed on to ontologies, with domain and range and restrictions specifying universes and boundaries - but it's a big change.
> 
> No its quite simple in fact, as I pointed out in a couple of e-mails in this thread. You just need to be careful when creating relations that certain relations are in fact inferred relations between primary topics.

I'd agree, but anything that involves being careful is pretty much 
doomed to failure on the web :p

>> really, different names for different things is quite simple to stick to,
> 
> yes, but there are a lot of people who say it is too complicated. I don't find it so, but perhaps it is for their use cases. I say that we describe the option they like, find out what the limitations are they will fall have, and document it. Then next time we can refer others to that discovery.
> 
> So limitations to look for would be limitations as to the complexity of the data created. The other limitations is that even on simple blog pages there are at least three or four things on the page.

there's also a primary limitation of the programming languages 
developers are using, if they've got locked in stone classes and 
objects, or even just structures, then the dynamics of RDF can be pretty 
hard to both understand mentally, and use practically.

>> and considering most (virtually all) documents on the web have several different elements and identifiable things,
> 
> indeed.
> 
>> the one page one subject thing isn't worth spending too much time focusing on as a generic use case, as any solution based on it won't apply to the web at large which is very diverse and packed full of lots of potentially identifiable things.
> 
> agree. But it is one of those things that newbies feel the urge to do, and will keep on wanting to do. So perhaps for them one should have special simple ontologies or guides for how to build these ObjectDocument ontologies. In any case this seems to be the type of thing the microformats people were (are?) doing.

hmm.. microformats seems to be pretty focussed on describing multiple 
items on one page, however the singularity is present in that they 
focussed on being described using a single Class Blueprint style, one 
class, a predetermined set of properties belonging to the class, and a 
simple chained heirarchy - this stems from most OO based languages.

With a bit of trickery you can use RDF and OWL the same way, it just 
means you have different "views" over the data, where you can see 
Human(x) with a set of properties, or Male(x) with another set, or 
Administrator(x) with yet another set. This is less about the data 
published and more about how it's consumed viewed and processed though.

Quite sure something can be done with that, where the simple version of 
the data uses a basic schema.org like ontology, and advanced usage is 
more RDF like using multiple ontologies. The "views" thing would be a 
way to merge the two approaches..

Best,

Nathan

Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 21:28:25 UTC