W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Dublin Core, the Primer and the Model Theory

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 16 May 2002 13:51:12 -0500
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1021575072.2295.84.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 11:17, Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 08:49 AM 5/16/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >The way I see it, dc:creator relates a work to
> >either its creator or a name for its creator.
> >So the conclusion just says that the two works
> >have either the same creator or have creators with
> >the same name.
> >
> >I'd rather the dublin core folks didn't use
> >RDF this way, but they did choose to, and
> >I'm pretty sure they were made aware of
> >this sort of nonsense when they made the choice.
> I don't think it's "nonsense", even though it may be less precise than some 
> alternative usages one might envisage.
> It's also a pattern of RDF use that seems to be very common among simple 
> applications, not just Dublin Core, which is not surprising given it has 
> always been enshrined in the RDF specifications, from the very first 
> example.  To try and turn that around, I think you might as well give up on 
> much of the following and energy that has gone into making even some small 
> successes for RDF, and start again from scratch.

Well, maybe.

But keep in mind there are at least a few implementations
that we break if we go the other way:

  # how does existing RDF software handle this datatypes test?

Responses indicate RDQL, rdfql, Squish, and Euler think literals
are tidy. But there was some indication of willingness to change...
"things could be changed to support non-tidy literals and then
I suppose you'd have to do something like...".

I suppose I'm willing to think it over, again. But tidy literals
is pretty deeply embedded into all the software and applications
I've developed over the last 18 months.

> Loads of folks are using XML for application data.  Many of these 
> applications are, IMO, natural territory for RDF.  I've had mixed success 
> persuading people to use an RDF-based format, but where I have had small 
> successes it's been on the basis that RDF doesn't have to be a giant leap 
> from what people are already doing.  Using literal text in loose ways, like 
> dc:creator, is something that I believe application designers need if they 
> are not to be put off using RDF.
> RDF, and in particular Pat's 'simpledatatype2' [1], can accommodate that 
> kind of looseness without irretrievably damaging it's ability to be more 
> precise when the need arises (or is recognized).
> My view is that adopting a datatyping proposal that accommodates the ways 
> that application designers feel comfortable with will have a big effect on 
> RDF's eventual fate.  I have not personally found the arguments that lead 
> us to require tidy literal interpretations to be compelling.  That this 
> approach leads to characterizations of the Dublin Core approach as 
> "nonsense" is indicative (to me) that it's out of step with thinking of 
> application designers in the large.
> #g
> --
> [1] http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2.html
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2002 14:51:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC