- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:59:58 -0400
- To: tpassin@home.com
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com> Subject: Re: a new way of thinking about RDF and RDF Schema Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:55:38 -0400 > [Peter F. Patel-Schneider] > > > > > Ahh. But suppose that you wanted to assign (RDF-ish) meaning to every XML > > document? I haven't seen any schems that can do so. > > Well, you can do so using the edge-labeling approach I posted about last > week or so. You get an edge labeled graph, and that ought to be "RDF-ish" > enough. In this approach, every element name becomes an edge label (i.e., a > property) and there are lots of anonymous nodes - in fact they are all > anonymous. You can only know them by their properties, except that text > nodes contain strings - they could be literals, in other words. Yes your approach works. (Or at least it works about as well as the node-labeling approach I am trying.) I should probably asked for schemes that assign meaning to every XML document and do ``the right thing'' for the RDF attributes (rdf:ID, rdf:about, ...). > Nothing else is really possible in an automated, uniform way, because with > no semantic information you can't know the intent of the original creator. > Other approaches are possible but they still have to make assumptions or > leave off information (analgous to anonymous nodes). Agreed. (Except that, as you stated, labeling the nodes is graph-theoretically equivalent.) > One of these other approaches is simply to make RDF graphs for parent-child > relationships. Another is to use element and attribute type resources and > describe the XML structure with brute force. But these seem to pretty > unsatisfying to me. Extremely unsatisfying, I agree. > I'd rather produce the edge-labeled graphs. At least > they do look RDF-ish and seem to make a reasonable amount of sense (to me, > at any rate). Yes, this is another possible approach, and one that probably deserves attention. > Cheers, > > Tom P peter
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 23:00:10 UTC