- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 08:28:31 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> wrote: >> Given these two URIs...how do I represent the value "Ora Lassila"? > > One way is like this: "Ora Lassila". The value represents itself quite > well. Aww, Dan. :-) You're a clever trickster. Either you're trying to be funny, or you misunderstood me. > Literal strings are something like un-named resources, you identify them > through providing their content, since they > don't themselves have Web names (URIs). Like other resources, you might > also identify them through description. Just as we might say "the company > whose homepage is xxx" or "the person whose personalMailbox if yyy", we > might say "the chunk of nameless data whose foo-checksum is zzz". This > kind of strategy can uniquely pick out something without using/needing a > URI for it. Yes, my question is how does one represent (in machine-readable syntax, preferably a URI) the value of a statement such as "the creator of the homepage qqq" -- that is, not the literal value, as you describe with the image includes, but the opposite: a reference to the value (perhaps as found through some sort of RDF searching mechanism). I can say "Ora Lassila" but that value won't change when Ora updates her RDF statements. I can say "the creator of homepage qqq" but that's a human statement, which no program I know of can parse. So I want a parse-able representation of a statement like "the creator of homepage qqq". > Yes... the data-aggregating power of RDF largely comes from having > piggybacked on the Web naming system. That said, I think sometimes in RDF > land we've over emphasised the need to have URIs for > everything. Oftentimes we'll be able to get by through identifying > resources by description rather than by name (now we've got a framework > for describing resources!). It's a bootstrapping thing... My question is is there a way to give these descriptions names. I like names, they make me happy because there's less ambiguity they're easier to code. > Not sure if this answers your question! I think I wasn't clear. I hope this clarifies it. Thanks for the cool base64 encodes, though! (Learn something new everyday.) -- Aaron Swartz |"This information is top security. <http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>| When you have read it, destroy yourself." <http://www.theinfo.org/> | - Marshall McLuhan
Received on Sunday, 3 September 2000 09:28:42 UTC