- From: Kevin Smathers <kevin.smathers@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:23:12 -0700
- To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
Butler, Mark wrote: >>Personally I >>prefer the >>first form except for the 'Owner' versus 'owner' distinction which is >>lost to me. Indeed, why not: >> >><Paintings rdf:about = "WMAA.70.1650"> >> <Title>(Self-Portrait)</Title> >> <owner> >> <Organization rdf:about = >>"http://www.amico.org/laf/entities/whitney_museum_of_american_art"> >> <name>Whitney Museum of American Art</name> >> </Organization> >> <accessionNumber rdf:resource = "70.1650" /> >> <place>New York, New York, USA</place> >> <credit>Josephine N. Hopper Bequest</credit> >> </owner> >></Paintings> >> >> > >Because that's not legal RDF. It breaks the striped syntax of RDF/XML, >because you've got > >Class > Property > Property > Class > Property > Property > Property > Property > >you can't have property property, it has to be class property class property >etc ... > > Ah, thanks for the education. I hadn't been thinking of the intermediate layers as properties (ie predicates), but with that distinction it becomes clear that you can't create a graph, one end-point of which is an arc. >Yes the owner / Owner distinction is horrible and ugly, but unfortuately >it's necessary due to the current RDF/XML syntax. The only way to overcome >it is to use rdf:parseType="Resource" e.g. > ><Paintings rdf:about = "WMAA.70.1650"> > <Title>(Self-Portrait)</Title> > <owner rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <organization> > <rdf:Description rdf:about >="http://www.amico.org/laf/entities/whitney_museum_of_american_art"> > <name>Whitney Museum of American Art</name> > </rdf:Description> > </organization> > <accessionNumber rdf:resource = "70.1650" /> > <place>New York, New York, USA</place> > <credit>Josephine N. Hopper Bequest</credit> > </owner> ></Paintings> > >(An aside: personally, I think this is further proof of how confusing the >striped syntax is, and I note that in XML people would naturally encode the >above as follows: > ><painting ID = "WMAA.70.1650"> > <title>(Self-Portrait)</title> > <owner> > <organization ID >="http://www.amico.org/laf/entities/whitney_museum_of_american_art"> > <name>Whitney Museum of American Art</name> > </organization> > <accessionNumber ID = "70.1650" /> > <place>New York, New York, USA</place> > <credit>Josephine N. Hopper Bequest</credit> > </owner> ></painting> > >If the serialisation above was valid RDF/XML, I think people would have less >difficulty writing RDF/XML. A number of people have made proposals along >these lines, I enclose I did a while back for anyone who is interested.) > > > I've long found the RDF/XML encoding somewhat confusing, but was never able to put my finger on why it kept confusing me. I think I've spent too much time with XML, and not enough with RDF/XML. With that clarified, I think that Andy's note is right on target. -- ======================================================== Kevin Smathers kevin.smathers@hp.com Hewlett-Packard kevin@ank.com Palo Alto Research Lab 1501 Page Mill Rd. 650-857-4477 work M/S 1135 650-852-8186 fax Palo Alto, CA 94304 510-247-1031 home ======================================================== use "Standard::Disclaimer"; carp("This message was printed on 100% recycled bits.");
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 12:25:25 UTC