RE: Proposal to drop support for pointing to a specific DR

Ah yes, you did say that it was about the DRs..which I mistook as POWDER
document.

Then I think it is even clearer and would support it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:18 PM
> To: Public POWDER
> Subject: Re: Proposal to drop support for pointing to a specific DR
> 
> 
> No, that's no correct. You can have a single document that 
> has all the DRs you need, or spread them over several, all it 
> means is that you can't do things like this
> 
> <ol>
>    <dr xml:id="DR_1!>
>      <iriset>...</iriset>
>      <descriptorset>...<descriptorset>
>    </dr>
> 
>    <dr ref="http:doc2.xml#DR_2" />
> </ol>
> 
> You'd have to have members of an ordered list in the same document.
> 
> Basically it means that each POWDER document stands on its 
> own. If you want to, you can point from one to another, but 
> at document level, not individual DR level. And you can't 
> have a DR in one doc override one in another document.
> 
> Linking directly to a description (in any document) is unaffected.
> 
> P
> 
> Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
> > Meant to go to the group...
> > 
> > Hi Phil,
> > 
> > If I understand this correctly it also means that we will 
> NOT be able 
> > to have one or a few documents that contain all the DRs we need.
> > 
> > Is that correct?
> > 
> > -- Kai
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org 
> >> [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:27 AM
> >> To: Public POWDER
> >> Subject: Re: Proposal to drop support for pointing to a specific DR
> >>
> >>
> >> The further implications of this - dropping support for linking 
> >> directly to a specific DR rather and only talking in terms 
> of linking 
> >> to a POWDER document - is that the very confusing and potentially 
> >> troublesome business of having ordered lists of DRs across 
> multiple 
> >> documents can be got rid of. Section 2.4.1 [1] suggests using 
> >> dc:isPartOf and well, it just looks ugly. I don't think we lose 
> >> anything, and gain a lot of clarity, if we say that 
> ordered lists of 
> >> DRs must be in a single document.
> >>
> >> All of which means that we can drop the whole of section 
> 2.4 and just 
> >> have a note in the linkage section that allows one POWDER doc to 
> >> point to another so that once you've found one POWDER doc, you can 
> >> find other related ones - something I think Kai has 
> mentioned a few 
> >> times.
> >>
> >> Unless someone screams, I'll do this in the version I'm 
> editing now 
> >> (it can always be put back).
> >>
> >> Phil.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080317/#partOf
> >>
> >> Phil Archer wrote:
> >>> We have a slight problem, but only a slight one.
> >>>
> >>> In the current published version of the DR doc there's a 
> section on 
> >>> "Multiple DRs With Different Attribution" [1]. This
> >> suggests that you
> >>> can do this:
> >>>
> >>> <dr xml:id="red">
> >>>   <iriset>
> >>>     <includehosts>example.com</includehosts>
> >>>   </iriset>
> >>>
> >>>   <descriptorset>
> >>>     <palette:color>red</palette:color>
> >>>   </descriptorset>
> >>> </dr>
> >>>
> >>> <dr ref="http://example.com/powder2.xml#square" />
> >>>
> >>> i.e. link from a POWDER doc to a specific DR in another doc.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you can in POWDER. The semantics here being that 
> after you've 
> >>> finished parsing the first DR, you might want to go and
> >> take a look at
> >>> http://example.com/powder2.xml#square. Fine... but it doesn't 
> >>> translate exactly into POWDER-S. At least, not as we're now
> >> writing it
> >>> following the discussion over how to express the sub class 
> >>> relationship [2]. The simpler way to assert the sub class,
> >> and in my
> >>> view the more natural way, is to do this:
> >>>
> >>> <owl:Class rdf:about="#resourceset_1">
> >>>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:ID="description_1"/> </owl:Class>
> >>>
> >>> This has particular benefits when it comes to expressing
> >> ordered lists
> >>> in POWDER-S where it becomes a very elegant and simple way of 
> >>> excluding IRI sets that should be excluded 'cos they're
> >> higher up the
> >>> list (see the Stasinos paper on this).
> >>>
> >>> But... notice that the descriptor set and IRI set have their 
> >>> identifiers and the bit of RDF/OWL here just adds to the
> >> information
> >>> about
> >>> resourceset_1 - it has no identity of its own. Therefore, 
> there is 
> >>> nowhere to use the 'square' identifier that we had in the 
> original 
> >>> POWDER XML.
> >>>
> >>> Does this matter?
> >>>
> >>> What exactly should a processor do with the information
> >> that 'there's
> >>> another DR at http://example.com/powder2.xml#square ? 
> Shouldn't it 
> >>> first decide whether to trust it or not? If you go straight
> >> to the DR
> >>> you might skip the attribution information - which goes 
> against the 
> >>> ethos somewhat (and means a different processing model depending 
> >>> whether you arrive at the DR with or without a fragment
> >> identifier). I
> >>> think it could be argued... OK, I will argue... that the
> >> better thing
> >>> to do is to link to the external document as a whole. One
> >> might think of it like this:
> >>> <attribution>
> >>>   <maker ref="http://www.example.org/foaf.rdf#me" /> 
> </attribution>
> >>>
> >>> <dr xml:id="red">
> >>>   <iriset>
> >>>     <includehosts>example.com</includehosts>
> >>>   </iriset>
> >>>   <descriptorset>
> >>>     <palette:color>red</palette:color>
> >>>   </descriptorset>
> >>> </dr>
> >>>
> >>> <seealso ref="http://example.com/powder2.xml" />
> >>>
> >>> In POWDER-S that last element would become:
> >>>
> >>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
> >>>   <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://example.com/powder2.xml
> >>> </rdf:Description>
> >>>
> >>> Which means, in POWDER-S, you may as well put it in what we
> >> think of
> >>> as the attribution block since the subject of the triple is the 
> >>> document itself, as is the case for the foaf stuff etc.
> >>>
> >>> I hope I'm making this clear although I fear I may not be :-(.
> >>>
> >>> Basically, I'm arguing that we should just use an element called 
> >>> <seealso /> to link from one POWDER doc to another and not
> >> worry about
> >>> linking to a specific DR.
> >>>
> >>> Phil.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> >> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Apr/0034.html
> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080317/#multiDRatt
> >>>
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 15:22:38 UTC