- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:24:31 +0100
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>>>Seth Russell said: > From: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> > > > >>>Seth Russell said: > > > And while were at that, why not invent another useful property ... > > > something to mean 'preferred human friendly name' ... this would be > > > like a cyc constant, a kif term, or a rdf:label. The thing that is > > > different between it and rdf:about (aside from the fact that it would > > > be human user friendly) is that it can change (be renamed) from time > > > to time and from system to system. But in any given system at any > > > given time it would be unique. For a moment let's just call this new > > > term ':named'. Nodes so named internally would be tied to > >> URI like this: > > > [:uri <http://foo/#Dog>; > > > :named "Doggie"]. > > > However, rdfs:label already exists, so why not just use that? Thanks for snipping all my reply and leaving just one line. > Because rdfs:label is not guaranteed to be a unique name for a node within > one system (or application memory storage) .. as specified above [1] ... yet > it can come from the outside world and cannot be ignored. This is not too > unusual of a concept, CycL does it. Such an internal name property is > useful, because then you can just scribble something to your system without > haveing to remember namespaces, URI or even include all those annoying > colons. For example: I see, so you want a unique name. In that case, you need schema systems such as DAML that have such restrictions. This isn't going to get into the core RDF schema at this time. > {Seth likes Chocolate}. {} brackets now, was [] above. Is this significant? > Then that can be communicated to the outside world in valid RDF\XML just > fine because it matches with the nodes inside your system where the info > below is stored: RDF/XML > > {Seth uri "http://robustai.net/~seth#ThePerson". > likes uri "http://robustai.net/verbs/#likes" . > Chocolate uri "http://robustai.net/EnglishNouns#Chocolate" .} This looks like reification into N3 contexts/formulas. So this is again beyond-RDF, and interesting but not something happening in the core RDF work at this time. Are 'Seth' 'uri' etc URIs, bnodes? And now you have '.' inside the {}s Please use a valid N3 or RDF/XML syntax > ... just translate the ':named' to the URI and output it with a > 'rdf:about' .. not exactly rocket science. The obvious advantage is that we > have eliminated the kind of pedantic problems which you have warned me about > above ... disadvantages ... well I can't think of any ... can you? There is no :named in the second examples. And if you want to talk about atranslations please show the translation in legal RDF/XML such as some that validates with http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ or N3 that works with Cwm. The syntaxes you are using or inventing here aren't helping. > Now obviously this is a API or application choice, it doesn't even need to > be a standard in RDF. Not likely at this stage; but maybe at the WebONT language level or later RDF work. Dave
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 15:24:37 UTC