W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2005

RE: UBL Naming Conventions & RDF

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:46:56 +0100
To: Darren Chamberlain <dlc@sevenroot.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Cc: iptc-metadata@yahoogroups.com
Message-id: <1987416CA83AC7499AC772F92E2DBF780413E0DA@LONSMSXM02.emea.ime.reuters.com>

This is similar to our strawman:

   <foo val="a:b"><parent val="c:d"></foo>

though our "parent" is ambiguous as it doesn't indicate the direction
of the relationship.  We actually mean the same as your childOf.  
And, as you see, we're using QNames rather than plain URIs.

For details, see:
   News Metadata Framework Technical Specification (6 July 2005)
   http://iptc.org/pdl.php?fn=DRAFT-NAR_1.0-spec-NMDF-TechSpec_6.pdf

Misha
Chair, IPTC News Metadata Framework WG


-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Darren Chamberlain
Sent: 08 July 2005 19:30
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: UBL Naming Conventions & RDF

John McClure wrote:
> 2. Ian Davis suggests the alternative <Person> <parent> <Person rdf
> about='uri'/> </parent> </Person>
> for my <Person><has><Parent rdf about='uri'/></has></Person>. My
concern is that
> <parent> is a noun, in effect, thereby eliminating predicate verbs as
meaningful
> classes [...]

In this case, why not express the relationship in terms of the <Person>
node itself, i.e., <Person><childOf rdf:about='uri' /></Person> ?  I
find this less confusing than the original <hasParent>, since it's in
the active voice rather than the passive, so to speak, and less
gratuitously wordy than <has><Parent>.

(darren)



-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:47:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:03 UTC