RE: Bitzi File Metadata RDF Dump

And this also touches on the validity of URIs in non-RDF
space. One would (or at least I would ;-) like to consider
URIs as a point of intersection between various solutions
employing RDF, XTM, RDBMS, LDAP, etc. etc.

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sean B. Palmer [mailto:sean@mysterylights.com]
> Sent: 26 September, 2001 19:26
> To: Dan Brickley; Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: aswartz@upclink.com; gojomo@bitzi.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bitzi File Metadata RDF Dump
> 
> 
> > And I'll merrily disagree with the pair of you. The cheapest
> > way to deal with this is as a textual property of the resource.
> 
> Actually, that may be the most expensive way. As Al Gilman 
> wrote earlier on
> uri@w3.org:-
> 
> [[[
> The point of URIs is that they creates a single non-colliding 
> space for
> "references outside this context" which is not aware of what 
> is a type,
> what is an instance, or much of anything else.
> ]]] - Al Gilman,
>    Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:51 PM
>    Subject: Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful
> 
> I actually countered with an example that in certain contexts 
> you don't
> need to identify the resources using a URI... you can use 
> (for example) an
> RDF property!
> 
> [[[
> For example, RDF doesn't particularly need a URI scheme to 
> identify media
> types, because it's much easier to just invent a predicate 
> relationship
> between some node and a literal value, which is to the effect that the
> literal value is the unique MIME type for the subject.
> ]]] - Sean B. Palmer,
>    Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 4:35 PM
>    Subject: Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful
> 
> But the Bitzi metadata structure may not be set up to store 
> the bitprints
> explicitly as RDF literal values that can be unambiguously 
> typed due to a
> well defined predicate relationship within a triple. In other 
> words, if it
> uses something other than (er... as well as) RDF to store the 
> bitprints,
> then it needs to come up with yet more architecture for 
> typing them. The
> value of a URI scheme/URN namespace/content type is that you 
> no longer need
> to add that mechanism, and hence in this context it may be a 
> lot "cheaper"
> to do that than the RDF property based solution.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Kindest Regards,
> Sean B. Palmer
> @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
> :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 14:18:22 UTC