- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:20:27 +0200
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 24 Jul 2006, at 15:02, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 7/24/06, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a >> document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that >> by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one >> not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but >> also that one will be able to interpret them. > [snip] > [this] point begs the question of how you specifiy what's in a > document beyond this - I know you mentioned RelaxNG earlier. The > nearest approach I know of is using rules (i.e. beyond RDF), as in > Schemarama2 [3,4, 5]. But I think this would be a lot easier to do, than play with HTTP. Sean B. Palmer had presented GraphSL a few years ago. But looking at it superficially I wonder if it will work, since it uses reification, and reification does not help distinguish identically referring names. (The Hesperus = Phosphorus problem). And so I am not sure GraphSL would be able to distinguish a :category from a :mcCategory . The Schemarama 2 tool you mention seems like a good idea, because it uses SPARQL, and so it can limit its queries to a graph. One way of looking at a graph is as a quotation mechanism. If so then this does seem like it should be a good way to define graph types. Once one can define graph types then it should be possible to define a Document Type (namely those whose graph is of that type). If that is possible, then it is ok to say that a resource is a producer of such graph types, and then it is ok for me to expect to find information of that type at that resource, when following links that make such claims. <http://eg.com/categories> a awol:CategoriesDocument . That is as much as we can ask for from the web, and so consequently the argument that we can't get by with an application/xml+rdf mime type [1] to express everything that we need to is dead in the water. That is all I need to be satisfied. Everything else is just extra goodness. Henry [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05901.html > Cheers, > Danny. > >> [1] http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/ > [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SparqlEndpointDescription > [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/validation > [4] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/ > [5] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/schemarama/how.html > > > -- > > http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 14:20:44 UTC