- From: Russell Duhon <fugu13@mac.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:20:20 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, newsml-2@yahoogroups.com
- Message-Id: <7B3CF16C-9E2E-4CED-92F4-7EFCAC0D0459@mac.com>
Interesting; while I certainly see problems with writing it all out by hand, I'd hope nobody's writing large amounts of RDF out by hand, and generating the triples is very straightforward. Also, talking about a set of statements is an application-level issue. At the RDF level you're just throwing more triples into the pot. Could you elaborate on the issues you had? Also, looking over your examples, things seem a bit odd. First, rdf:nodeID is file-internal, and can't be used across different files. And you don't use rdf:resouce to specify an instance with an rdf:nodeID as an object, you use rdf:nodeID again. Additionally, your approach does not seem to be tackling the same need -- the "results" of the evaluation/report described by the EARL statement are very closely tied to the metadata about the report -- they're really all parts/properties of the same "thing", an evaluation or report. With NewsML, however, it will likely be important to extract just the statements, and work with those, or to have more than one set of metadata about the same statements. The statement metadata isn't really about the same thing as the item metadata. By using the Statement approach, the plain triples are part of the RDF to be manipulated, and I can ask (sorry for the pidgin) things like: ?x newsml:subject ho:trains instead of having to ask ?y newsml:concerning ?x, ?y newsml:concerningSubject ho:trains . Particularly, the first captures the meaning far more accurately, which I feel is Very Important to good RDF. Though actually, I've just thought of a weakness of the statement approach, where you might have more than one person making different confidence evaluations of the same statement, or similar. Therefore I advocate the following basic approach: random:triple1 rdf:type rdf:Statement . random:triple1 rdf:subject random:item42 . random:triple1 rdf:predicate newsml:provider . random:triple1 rdf:object "iptc.org"^^xsd:string . random:triple1 newsml:meta random:metadata5 . random:metadata5 rdf:type newsml:StatementMetadata . random:metadata5 newsml:evaluator random:person1. random:metadata5 newsml:confidence "0.5"^^xsd:float . After all, nearly anything can be solved with an additional degree of indirection ;-) . Russell On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:54:48 +0100, Russell Duhon <fugu13@mac.com> > wrote: > >> The reification approach would likely be a good bet. >> >> I've worked up a quick example, working from content in your >> model draft ( http://www.iptc.org/ >> NAR/1.0/specification/DRAFT-NAR_1.0-spec-Model_12.pdf ) and an >> example in the RDF Primer. >> >> Here's how it might look (fragmentary, of course): >> random:triple1 rdf:type rdf:Statement . >> random:triple1 rdf:subject random:item42 . >> random:triple1 rdf:predicate newsml:provider . >> random:triple1 rdf:object "iptc.org"^^xsd:string . >> random:triple1 newsml:confidence "0.4"^^xsd:float . > > Earlier drafts of EARL actually took this approach. While it is > functionally pretty similar, we moved away from it because it > seemed just a tiny bit more complex to explain, and it really got > quite complicated if you wanted to talk about a set of statements. > > Cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com > hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk > Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/ >
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 20:20:48 UTC