- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:42:34 +0200
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sean B. Palmer gave me some very feedback on this on the #swig irc channel. You can read it here: http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-07-22.html#T16-47-03 Sean even had put forward a paper on the subject in 2003 http://infomesh.net/2003/graphsl This problem has also occurred on the foaf newsgroup when trying to work out what a foaf:Document exactly is. It looks like there are solutions that can be developed here, that would be something like xml schema or relax ng for rdf. I think this would be very useful in many areas of the semantic web. It would for example allows us to say that a foaf:Document is a document that must contain a statement about an entry or a resource, that that thing must have an id that is stated, a title that is stated, etc... This is different from the semantics. It would then be possible for example to create a foaf:PostDocument that would be like a foaf:Document, except that the id need not be stated. A foaf:PostDocument would be something one could POST to a collection (the server would determine the id) Henry Home page: http://bblfish.net/ Sun Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/ On 21 Jul 2006, at 17:21, Henry Story wrote: > > RDF solves the mime type explosion problem. Everything can be > expressed in one of the RDF mime types (I'll use N3 here cause it's > easier to write). But has the mime type explosion problem just been > shifted? > > Below is an example that should help illustrate the problem. > > Example > ------- > > Imagine I translate the following atom > > <entry> > ... > <link rel="categories" href="/cats"/> > ... > </entry> > > into the following N3 > > [] a :Entry; > iana:categories </cats> . > > Where I have defined > > @prefix iana: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/> . > @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . > @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . > > iana:categories a owl:ObjectPropery; > rdfs:domain :FeedOrEntry; > rdfs:range :CategoryList . > > > The N3 representation of </cats> could be something like > > <> a :CategoryList; > :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; > :term "dog" ]; > :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; > :term "house" ]. > > > > > Question > -------- > > What guarantee do I have that the representation returned is not > > <> a :McDonaldCategoryList; > :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; > :McTerm "dog" ]; > :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; > :McTerm "house" ]. > > where the above terms are all defined somewhere as being owl:sameAs > the ones I was expecting to receive? > > > Solution? > -------- > > Well perhaps one could argue that :categories is a relation that > creates an expectation of things being represented in a certain > way. But since we are dealing with semantics, that seems a little > dodgy. > > Perhaps it is just expectations and conventions that we use the > same vocabulary that will solve this problem. After all that is > just what happens in normal language learning > (See perhaps Devid Lewis's book Convention) > > Henry > > > Home page: http://bblfish.net/ > Sun Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/ > > >
Received on Saturday, 22 July 2006 17:42:48 UTC