- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:46:51 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, CC/PP WG list <w3c-ccpp-wg@w3.org>
Graham, As I understand it, the problem you have stated is: 1) There is an application involving the description of device capabilities using RDF. 2) It would be good to include in that description an 'assurance', i.e. a statement that some entity is asserting that these are the true capabilities of the device. 3) There is a concern about the complexity of reification in RDF and you are asking whether there is way to represent this assurance without using reification. 4) You are not asking about ensuring the truth of the RDF; you believe that is covered elsewhere. I wonder whether the following would meet these needs: Consider a resource which is a DeviceCapabilitiesDescription. It has three properties: o device - the device being described o capabilities - an anonymous resource which collects the properties of the device o assurance - the entity asserting that these are the correct properties This is a simple model and might be represented as an RDF serialization of the form: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ccppX="..."> <ccppX:DeviceCapsStatement> <ccppX:device>...</ccppX:device> <ccppX:assurance>Brian Says This</ccppX:assurance> <ccppX:capabilities> <ccppX:colours>2</ccppX:colours> <ccppX:keyboard>12 digit pad</ccppX:keyboard> ... ... </ccppX:capabilities> </ccppX:DeviceCapsStatement> </rdf:RDF> I think this is pretty close to your original suggestion. I don't know of anything wrong with it, but I know about as much about knowledge representation as I do about cryptography (not a lot). Brian McBride HPLabs
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 11:47:03 UTC