- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:30:27 +0200
- To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 25 Jul 2006, at 18:53, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: >> - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a >> document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that >> by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one >> not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but >> also that one will be able to interpret them. > I don't think this is a good approach. <http://gmuer.ch/> is an > rss:channel, a knobot:Topic and a webdav:Collection, to what should I > reduce the RDF representation to? A WebDavRDF-Client will want other > triples than an AtomOWL aggreator. Perhaps you're having trouble because you want to do a little too much with content negotiation? ;-) There certainly are cases where things are a lot simpler, and one wants to define certain documents by the relations they contain. So perhaps one test for an awol:EntryDocument graph would be PREFIX : <http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/#> CONSTRUCT { [] a :Warning; :message 'An entry without an id, a title or an updated '. } WHERE { ?e :id ?id; :title ?title; :updated ?updated . FILTER ( !bound(?id) && !bound(?updated)) } Schmerama2 does need some more working on. It would be nice if it could be written out using N3 rules, or at least not be so tied to Jena rules. But if I can trust definitions like this, then I should be able to follow documents I understand to other documents I understand. Which as I said, is what is needed to cut short the critique that the Semantic Web has just moved the mime type explosion problem to some other place [2]. This can be summarised as follows. Every new xml language usually needs its own mime type. But RDF only really needs one (application/rdf+xml). If on the other hand one has to do semantic content negotiation to get the information one needs, then it would seem that rdf suffers the same problem as vanilla xml: it will require an infinite number of other content negotiation mechanisms to get the information one desires. But as shown above one can have expectations of the types of documents at certain locations. These expectations needs not be very strict. But they can bootstrap my discovery process. Henry Story [1] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/cvs-public/~checkout~/skos/schemarama/ [2] last paragraphs of : http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05901.html Home page: http://bblfish.net/ Sun Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 17:30:34 UTC