W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Announcement: Firefox Navibar Extension 0.10

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:11:47 +0100
Message-ID: <43C12BB3.3030701@gmuer.ch>
To: "siebeneicher@oaklett.org" <siebeneicher@oaklett.org>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org

navibar looks good.

I'm wondering if it is possible to support non-tree website structure 
(like the page 
http://www.osar.ch/education/flight-asylum-integration/pedagogic-approach 
which is a subcategory both of  
http://www.osar.ch/education/flight-asylum-integration/adults, 
http://www.osar.ch/education/flight-asylum-integration/youth).

I would in deed like to see standardized ontology for describing the 
structure of web-content, in regards to your current format I agree with 
Jeremy that it would be nice to have the resources being instances of 
something more specific than rdfs:Resource, furthermore I don't see the 
need to use urns and to have the http-url as a plain literal (why not 
allow to say more about the dereferenceable resources?)

reto

siebeneicher@oaklett.org schrieb:

>
> Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 wrote:
>
>> Why do you use the IRI "urn:sitemap:root" as the starting-point of 
>> your software's navigation? I think you should use the "rdfs:Class" 
>> facility instead of defining the use of any specific IRI...
>
>
> The short answer is, that i never mentioned exactly this question.
>
> The long answer is, that during writing of the specification i thought 
> of using OWL as theoreticaly the best format to represent the ontology 
> of a website. Unfortunately Firefox do not supprt any OWL or RDFS and 
> instead i decide to use simple RDF. It was only of practical reasons 
> that i chose RDF. (Yes, RDF and RDFS could be combined, but at the 
> time of writing i want a strict separation)
>
> I know that the NNS format has some faults and from my point of view 
> NNS is not intended to be an official standard format for the internet 
> although it has some interesting ideas. For example the "container" 
> and "embedded" elements which complements each other. If any container 
> or emebedded element would be named like a Class is namend in RDFS, it 
> would be similar to RDFS but without using RDFS.
>
> To my regret, i do not know much of the current OWL/RDFS/RDF/... 
> trends and on going works. So, please tell me what practical advantage 
> users and programms(or programmers) would have if the format would use 
> rdfs:Class instead of the IRI "urn:sitemap:root" to define the 
> starting point of the Sitemaps graph.
>
> Markus
>
>
Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 15:12:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:55 UTC