- From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefanom@mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:19:24 -0500
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Frank Manola wrote: > > You don't necessarily need a *blank* predicate. You just need a > "standard" predicate (standard for somebody!) that means "is related to" > (in some way that you haven't identified further). Using this, you'd > write something like: > > subject predicate object > > country - ex:isRelatedTo --> "Canada" > country - ex:isRelatedTo --> city - ex:isRelatedTo --> "Montréal" > country - ex:isRelatedTo --> city - ex:isRelatedTo --> "Toronto" > country - ex:isRelatedTo --> city - ex:isRelatedTo --> > "Vancouver" I strongly believe this would be one step forward and five steps backwards. The above might be valid RDF but it's completely useless: throw it into a triple-store and it feels just like a lot of noisy bNodes. I would much rather have some sort of declarative 'semanticsheet' (produced by the data makers or by some 'semantic annotators') that makes the information implicitly encoded in the xpaths explicit: country/text() -> dc:title country/city -> geo:city but this is only half of the puzzle, since the URI identification of the nodes is still missing. [BTW, this is part of my research work on the RDFification of data for the SIMILE project, the above 'semanticsheet' could be easily translated into XSLT] -- Stefano Mazzocchi Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C 77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu -------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 15:19:22 UTC