- From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:06:06 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Surely the obvious way is to have an owl:Class Secret, to which all secret documents can belong. I took Roger to be asking for a unary predicate, and class membership is the only unary predicate defined in RDF. This would also make it nice and easy for semantic web agents to search for secret documents :-) Cheers, Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Hanna [mailto:jon@spin.ie] > Sent: 14 May 2003 13:50 > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: RE: Defining a property to have an EMPTY range? > > > > > Example: I would like to be able to "tag" a Document with a > security > > classification, e.g., > > > > <Document> > > <secret/> > > <content> > > ... > > </content> > > </Document> > > > > Note the <secret/> property. Its purpose it simply to "tag" this > > Document as having a secret classification. > > Think about what that would be in triples: > > <DocumentURI> <secret> <EMPTY> . > > Hardly seems correct. Indeed it isn't valid RDF/XML. > What's more the lack of the <secret/> element in the Document > doesn't preclude the possibility that it has the same status > as one with a <secret/> element (given RDFs open nature). > > I think you are applying a XML document design technique to > RDF/XML that doesn't belong in RDF/XML. > > One option is to continue to do so, in particular if RDF > isn't the main thing you are doing with this document. It > would still be possible to represent that a document has a > confidentiality status of "secret" in RDF by other means if > necessary (perhaps at a different level in the application). > > On the other hand if RDF is a major part of what you are > doing here then something like: > > <Document> > <secret>true</secret> > <content>...</content> > </Document> > > or > > <Document> > <securityLevel rdf:resource="http://someURI/security#secret"/> > <content>...</content> > </Document> > > might be more appropriate. >
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 09:06:25 UTC