- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:35:26 -0500
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F52646E.8010806@openlinksw.com>
On 3/3/12 5:35 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 3 March 2012 06:12, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > >> Um...biology? (Do you seriously believe that a document can be a person? Even the US Supreme Court hasnt quite gone that far yet.) > If a book with no words, just pictures, can be a document; or a book > written on parchment or bytes rather than paper, then why not a > tattoo'd person being a book? > > You might argue that their physical body was just a carrier for the > document, and that the person wasn't themselves the document. The > relationship between a person and their body isn't something with a > tidy answer, any more than the relationship between a physical book > and the abstract document it carries has an obvious perfect formal > model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records). > > Your use of "seriously" suggests the idea is obviously ridiculous, but > the restrictions you'd need on 'document' would likely rule out other > more obvious documents too. Perhaps you meant HTTP document? I have a > hard time imagining an HTTP document being a person, ... > > Dan > > p.s. > See also http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/whatdoc.html > > "Abstract: Ordinarily the word "document" denotes a textual record. > Increasingly sophisticated attempts to provide access to the rapidly > growing quantity of available documents raised questions about which > should be considered a "document". The answer is important for any > definition of the scope of Information Science. Paul Otlet and others > developed a functional view of "document" and discussed whether, for > example, sculpture, museum objects, and live animals, could be > considered "documents". Suzanne Briet equated "document" with > organized physical evidence. These ideas appear to resemble notions of > "material culture" in cultural anthropology and "object-as-sign" in > semiotics. Others, especially in the USA (e.g. Jesse Shera and Louis > Shores) took a narrower view. New digital technology renews old > questions and also old confusions between medium, message, and > meaning." > > Taking a different route to the point Dan is making, how about this: A uri can identify a document. A uri can identify a document location. This is also a url, a subclass of a uri. A uri can identify a document subject. Anything can be a document subject. Bearing in mind the above, you can have a document (xyz.owl) that describes an ontology. Thus, said document (xyz.owl) can have a uri distinct from the ontology uri (the subject of xyx.owl). Here is some Virtuoso SPASQL that demonstrates my point: ### Nepomuk Personal Information Management Ontology cleanup ### Problem: the descriptor document (doc describing the ontology is missing critical relations such as: rdfs:isDefinedBy and wdrs:describedby ). ### Solution: add the missing relations to a named graph in Virtuoso via the SPASQL below. ### Important points: the ontology has its own uri distinct from the uri (basically url) of the descriptor document. INSERT INTO <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/> {?s rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo#> . <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo#> <http://open.vocab.org/terms/defines> ?s. <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo#> a owl:Ontology . ?s <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby> <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/>} FROM <http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/11/01/pimo/> WHERE { optional {?s rdfs:subClassOf ?o}. optional {?s rdfs:subPropertyOf ?o}. optional {?s owl:equivalentClass ?o}. optional {?s owl:equivalentProperty ?o}. optional {?s a ?o}} Here's are urls of documents that showcases the effects of the above: 1. http://uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.semanticdesktop.org%2Fontologies%2F2007%2F11%2F01%2Fpimo%23 -- ontology as subject of a descriptor document 2. http://uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschemapedia.com%2Fschemas%2Fsemanticdesktop-pimo -- descriptor document that has an ontology as its primary topic (or subject). I hope this helps. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 18:35:51 UTC