Re: Is it a semantic problem?

Is it ok to use something like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF
	xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
>

	<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://url.com">
		<item>
			<title>Some title Here</title>
			<description>This is fun</description>
		</item>
	</rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

in order to group the title and the description elements. IsaViz and
the w3 validator doesn't provide me with the graph that I would like
to see.

On 6/19/05, Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 15:55:16 UTC