- 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