Re: Is it a semantic problem?

On 19 Jun 2005, at 14:32, Petko Petkov wrote:
> As far as I can see, when dealing with RDF data, we should design the
> statements, not the actual structure of the XML file. I guess this
> will be a big problem for many XML developers.

Yes. One should be working with the semantics at the level of the  
statement, not one of its possible serialisations. To do otherwise is  
to incorrectly conflate RDF and RDF/XML. I find it makes a lot more  
sense to work in Turtle/Notation3, using RDF/XML solely for interchange.

[jibe] XML developers have a long history of implicit and poorly- 
specified semantics,  so yes, this might be difficult for them. [/jibe]
Conversely, much XML does translate quite easily to RDF, whether  
through GRDDL or simply striping. It's not all that clear-cut.

> However, I wonder, what it will be the best way to create sort of
> relationship between statements. Anyone?

You might be interested in the work of the SW Best Practices Working  
Group:

<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/>

particularly n-ary relations:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/>

This approach can be used to deal with this sort of problem on a case- 
by-case basis.

However, many problems do indeed decompose to annotation of other  
statements, so other solutions (such as named graphs and quads) are  
being considered as more general solutions. These, though, are  
outside the scope of RDF as it currently stands.

-R

Received on Sunday, 19 June 2005 14:37:51 UTC