- From: <tony_hammond@harcourt.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:00:44 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Aaron Swartz'" <me@aaronsw.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Well this bNode debate is very promising. Our take on bNodes is to manage
resource collections. The model we have proposed - YADS - is premised on
bNodes which are used to build compound objects around a central resource
or collection property (through which a hierarchy can be propagated) - full
n3 below. A real "house of cards" model. See
http://www2.elsevier.co.uk/~tony/yads/
for documentation and some applications (YADS schema tree, DOI multiple
resolution, XLink, RFC 2396).
The model allows for a safe and scalable solution to describing resource
collections and the simple, recursive model of hierarchy allows for a
trivial XML de/serialization of the tree. Our interest in hierarchy is to
compartmentalize multiple collections. Interested to get any feedback. (BTW
- all the diagrams use typed bNodes.)
Tony
@prefix : <#> .
@prefix s: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> .
# Nest class ( :collection & :resource )
:Nest a s:Class .
# Item class ( :collection | :resource )
:Item a s:Class .
# Resource properties
:collection a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Container .
:resource a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Resource .
# Literal properties
:access a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
:detail a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
:directive a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
:label a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
:role a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
:service a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
:type a s:Property ;
s:domain :Item, :Nest ; s:range s:Literal .
"Seaborne, Andy"
<Andy_Seaborne@hplb.h To: "'Aaron Swartz'" <me@aaronsw.com>
pl.hp.com> cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sent by: Subject: RE: bNodes wanted
www-rdf-interest-requ
est@w3.org
24/05/2002 11:29
Two cases where I use bNodes (which may be different to what they are meant
for):
1/ the thing is not web resource (people, organisations, email messages and
that Porsche I don't have)
2/ grouping to build information about a composite concept
Abusing the ontology for ISWC:
<Researcher>
<homepage rdf:resource='http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/afs'/>
<name rdf:parseType="Resource">
<first>Andy</first>
<last>Seaborne</last>
</name>
</Researcher>
I am not a web resource but can be found by my homepage. My name has
structure and this could be useful to retain.
You can refer to a bNode - you find it by query. It is especially
interesting if you find more than one. URIs don't really have such a
priviledged place - we could have all bNodes and a property "hasURI" and
then everything is found by query.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:me@aaronsw.com]
Sent: 23 May 2002 22:16
To: Seaborne, Andy
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: bNodes wanted
On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 07:36 AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> A precursor to better modelling is more bNodes - and a general
> enthusiasm to
> use them. I think people shy away from them at present which hurts data
> integration (amongst other things).
Could you elaborate? I've always found bNodes a bad idea, since, among
other things, you can't refer to them and so I strongly recommend
against them.
--
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 03:18:14 UTC