- From: Jan Wielemaker <jan@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:07:34 +0200
- To: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Stefan Kokkelink wrote:
>Jan Wielemaker wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Throwing it at the SWI-Prolog parser suggests what you say:
>>
>> 'URL1' http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/:Prop each(pages)
>>
>> (It does not expand bags into separate tripples, but rather returns
>> a term each(BagId))
>>
>> But looking at it, I wonder whether is correct. Shouldn't it reify
>> the inlined description and generate a (URI, DC:Prop, <BagIdOfReified>)
>> tripple?
>>
>> I.e. if a description is the value of an attribute, reify the
>> description and make the value the reified bag?
>
>Hm, I don't think so (although I'm not sure ;-). Without
>'aboutEach' the role of a description element is
>quite clear: a description element represents a (single)
>resource, which can act as a target and as a source
>for arcs in the RDF graph.
Not so sure. SirPAC and the SWI-Prolog agree on the following:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:DC="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/">
<Description about="URL1">
<DC:Prop>
<Description about="pages">
<DC:Creator>Ora Lassila</DC:Creator>
</Description>
</DC:Prop>
</Description>
</RDF>
to create (SirPAC):
triple('http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/Creator',
'online#pages',
'Ora Lassila').
triple('http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/Prop',
'online#URL1',
'online#pages').
Ok, the first sounds reasonable, but the second sounds a bit odd.
To me, the original statement is something like
``URL1 has Prop (pages has creator Ora Lasilla)''
which RDF should state using reification. Ok, I've been on holiday
after writing the SWI-Prolog-based RDF parser and not looked in detail
at RDF syntax (only at the triples :-) afterwards, so please correct
me if I'm talking nonsense!
>When 'aboutEach' is specified,
>the resource represented by the description element is 'replaced'
>with the set of resources contained in the named container.
>Why shouldn't the role of the resource as target
>don't expand in the same manner?
I agree with this statement.
Regards --- Jan
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 11:16:01 UTC