W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: RDF 2.0 proposal: contextual properties

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:24:09 -0400
Message-ID: <46B9E019.6080100@gmail.com>
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Garret Wilson wrote:


>> I really do not like this general move of turning everything into '2.0'.
> Call it what you will---contextual properties is a feature that I need 
> and I think would be useful. I was using "RDF 2.0" as a shorthand 
> because of the complaints I had received for complaining about the 
> current RDF---I was told basically to go propose a new RDF or shut up. 
> So I chose the easier of the two... ;)

To me this is all a question of priorities. To me, what could use fixing 
in RDF and related specs are:

	- dump reification
	- normalize the RDF/XML syntax
	- allow literal lists in RDF/XML
	- add support for querying lists to SPARQL

I think it'd also make sense to add named graph support to RDF/XML; 
namely, an rdf:about attribute to the root rdf:RDF node (though should 
probably be changed to rdf:graph).

Finally, I've often seen suggestions we need support for provenance and 
time baked into the model (who made a statement, and when is it valid) 
beyond named graphs. That seems like it might be a good idea.

A lot of the examples you're presenting just don't rise to the level of 
the above for me. I don't really think your vCard example with telephone 
numbers and names makes your case for contextual properties, for 
example. To really model it the way you want to model it suggests you 
actually model context yourself.

<http://ex.net/1> a vcard:VCard ;
     vx:context <http://ex.net/2> ;
     vx:context <http://ex.net/3> .

<http://ex.net/2> a context:Home ;
     vcard:telephone tel:13-49813-94831 .

<http://ex.net/3> a context:Work ;
     vcard:telephone tel:11084-093184931 .

Is there any reason that's not adequate and *requires* changing the RDF 
model to get around?

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 15:25:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC