- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 12:57:56 -0800
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <xfml@yahoogroups.com>
- Message-ID: <002c01c2837b$b03589f0$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
My Knowledge Explorer automatically checks for mutually exclusive classes, and could enforce it if desired. ============ Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done knowledge haspart list of proposition ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Ayers To: RDF-Interest ; xfml@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:18 AM Subject: XFML & RDF A list crossover post, I think the intersection raises interesting questions on both sides. XFML (eXchangable Faceted Metadata Language) is a lightweight language for classification, which draws largely from the Topic Map tradition. The representation of this information in RDF could I think be very useful (the language is already in use for syndication feeds - see the purple icon at the bottom of [6]). Below is a description of the key term in this language, and my initial thoughts looking at it from an RDF point of view. There is a public space for discussion of this that doesn't involve getting tangled up with the mailing lists - the XFML Wiki [4]. Cheers, Danny. ---- from [2]: Facets are mutually exclusive containers that contain hierarchies of topics. Mutually exclusive means that a certain topic can only possibly belong to one facet. "Things to do" and "Places to go" are good facets, because a topic can never be both a thing to do and a place to go to. "People" and "Colours" are two other good facets. "Cities" and "Places to visit" are bad facets if used in the same map because "Brussels" (a potential topic) could belong to both. Note that the "mutually exclusive" requirement is not something that can be enforced by software. ---- My first impression is that the facets can't be expressed in vanilla RDF because of the mutual exclusion requirement. However, the DAML+OIL language [3] (and its forthcoming successor, OWL [7] (not Lite)) contains daml:disjointWith, so I think facet could probably be expressed as a class through this. Apart from the 'facet' term itself, I think everything else can be expressed fairly easily in RDF(S), mostly following existing XTM/RDF mappings [5]. There may still be problems in regards to the open/closed world assumptions and the extent of the exclusivity (I'm not quite clear enough in my understanding of XFML or logic!). [1] http://xfml.org/ [2] http://www.xfml.org/spec/1.0.html [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference [4] http://xfml.net/index.php?page=XfmlAndRDF [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/09-RDF-topic-maps/ [6] http://www.iaslash.org/module.php?mod=syndication [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ ----------- Danny Ayers Idea maps for the Semantic Web http://ideagraph.net <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff> Semantic Web Log : http://www.citnames.com/blog
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2002 15:58:26 UTC