- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:52:18 -0500 (EST)
- To: Marjolein Katsma <wkf1s1l9yfpruqn001@sneakemail.com>
- cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Marjolein, in a test of RDF scalability, I am more and more using RDF to keep track of where things are - because I don't consider that my organisational skills are enough to scale forever, and I don't want things to get moved around nor lost. The approach I have been working with is using something like annotea - http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea - so that I simply tell a server to record that some file is an annotation on some other, and some RDF to describe the relationship. Then I can query the server for information about a resource, and get back what I told it. (If it implements a query language like algae, as the W3C's example server does, I can ask for all kinds of particular information, or just everything that has been recorded.) The other benefit I find in the annotea approach is that I can annotate things that aren't mine to change - this is something that it shares with other annotation systems. Discussion of Annotea takes place on the www-annotation@w3.org list - archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-annotation/ - most recently including updates to the protocol, and working on a "dummmies installation guide" for the ZAnnot annotea server. Cheers Chaals On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Marjolein Katsma wrote: > >Hi All, > >This is more a practical question than a question about RDF per se, but I >think it might still be interesting for this list. (If not, just ignore >this question or reply off-list.) > >It's easy to see that once you're starting to describe a lot of things, the >number of RDF files grows with the number of things described, too - maybe >even faster. I'm trying to think of a good way to organize mine (before I >find I need to re-organize them because I didn't think beforehand :)) so I >wonder how others are doing this. > >One approach might be to store RDF files with the "things" they describe; >but that would break down when you're describing relationships between >things that themselves are in different places. So - I think I want to keep >all RDF files in a separate location. > >But then - I'll have an RDF file describing a catalog of products, RDF >files describing products or versions of products, RDF files describing >distribution packages... I could organize them in a tree of directories >according to their purpose, or I could have themall in a single directory >and devise a naming scheme that would (for instance) tell me whether an RDF >file is for a product version (describing what it _is_) or for a >distribution package for that same product version (describing what it >contains - and there could be several distriibutions for a single product >version). I'm simplifying, of course :) > >Now I could just pick a method to organize the files and stick with it but >I'd be interested in hearing how others do it - I reckon I could learn from >others who've been through this process already. And maybe people use >different methods so it would be interesting to hear why they use one, and >not another, approach, and others just the opposite. > >So: how do you organize a (growing) bunch of RDF files - and why do you do >it that way? Does it depend on th eapplication (what you're using the RDF >files for) or is it just an organization method you prefer ingeneral? > >Oh - and maybe I should also ask: do you use RDF to describe how you organize your RDF files? ;-) > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 03:52:19 UTC