W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

Re: xml without rdf, but with an ontology [0]

From: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:07:30 +0000
Message-ID: <41E7EE42.9080901@internetalchemy.org>
To: atom-owl@googlegroups.com
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, jsled@asynchronous.org, bloged <users@bloged.dev.java.net>

On 14/01/2005 15:40, Henry Story wrote:
> so we can find the definition of foaf:homepage at
> http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#homepage

There's no requirement from the web that this should be true. What if 
the extension namespace were urn:foo:1234567:foaf ?

> [snip]
>> So, there need to be some sort of structural rules that define what  
>> types of triples should be produced. These rules should be consistent  
>> and work from the instance document. For the specific case of Atom 
>> the  following suggested equivilences between markup and NTriples 
>> might  serve:
> Before I go into these examples, can you tell me how my proposal does
> NOT deal with them?

1. It assumes that every extension will have an OWL schema at the 
namespace URI. I don't believe that extensions will have OWL schemas in 
general, or that they will be always accessible at that URI.

2. It also handles different instances of the same extension in 
different ways. I'm sure you've already done this but can you list the 
production rules for triples in the scenarios I listed. Assume that 
<extension> is typed as a property in an OWL schema. Imagine then that 
the extension contains contact information for an author but your 
software can't know this up front so it has to work out how to display 
it. What query do you write against the triple store to get this 

Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 16:07:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:54 UTC