- From: David Allsopp <d.allsopp@signal.qinetiq.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 12:27:13 +0100
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > What I am saying is that given a statement like this: > > > > http://uche.ogbuji.net :characteristics :very-interesting > > > > will leave many people puzzled whether I mean that you are a very > > interesting person or > > that your website is definitely worth looking at. :-) > > It shouldn't leave least bit puzzled. It is obviously talking aboout the Web > site, not the person. That's not obvious to me. The statement is talking about the Resource with the URI "http://uche.ogbuji.net". Reading that statement, one has no idea whether there is a webpage at that address or whether that Resource represents a page. Nor do we have any idea what type the Resource is (other than rdfs:Resource, obviously). We need another triple using rdf:type to specify what the Resource is. > > > I don't see that Topic Maps gains anything with this built-in indirection, > > > except one of the most complex data models I have ever seen for a > > description > > > language (puts CIM to shame, I must say). > > > > The gain is in avoiding confusing situations like the one that I mentioned > > above. > > But I don't see the confusion. RFC 1738, which governs the URI > http://uche.ogbuji.net makes it clear that this URI locates/identifies the > document that is retrieved using HTTP and that address. Why would anyone > thing it represents a person? They wouldn't, unless another triple stated that the Resource was of type "foo:Person" or whatever. But nor should they think it refers to a webpage, in the context of RDF. You can write perfectly correct and useful RDF that uses "http://..." URIs, despite there being no actual webpages at those "addresses". > > I also do not see how this makes data model complex. > > Maybe I'm just thick, but I just do not come close to understanding Topic > Maps. There are just too many moving parts interacting in confusing ways. I > must say, though, from observice the discussiuons at KT, that I'm not sure > anyone really does. The TM presentation at the Sem Web Working Symposium at Stanford certainly involved a lot of confusion... Regards, David -- /d{def}def/u{dup}d[0 -185 u 0 300 u]concat/q 5e-3 d/m{mul}d/z{A u m B u m}d/r{rlineto}d/X -2 q 1{d/Y -2 q 2{d/A 0 d/B 0 d 64 -1 1{/f exch d/B A/A z sub X add d B 2 m m Y add d z add 4 gt{exit}if/f 64 d}for f 64 div setgray X Y moveto 0 q neg u 0 0 q u 0 r r r r fill/Y}for/X}for showpage
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 07:28:36 UTC