From: Dan Brickley (Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: 03/03/01
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > Dan Brickley wrote: > > This is a followup to some hallway and lunchtable conversations about > Regardless of what DAML+OIL+DT does, I consider that practice > broken. Based on the experience I have building tools and apps, > I recommend folks get used to making clear distinctions between > things and names for things. I appreciate the modelling concern. On other days however we'll argue that data:* URIs shoe-horn literals into the URI space, so the distinction between resource-valued and literal-valued properties doesn't always seem such a fast one. One might also argue that URIs are also just names (a better kind of name). Given that RDF gives processors the type of the value of a dc:creator property, the DC data is fixable. Sometimes it makes sense to adopt a graceful, rich models, sometimes fixable-hacks make sense. It's not for DAML+OIL or RDF to police the world's data modelling practices... If consenting adults decide to exchange dc:creator info the way the dc-datamodel decided back in spring 1998, it's not for us to pull the infrastructural rug out from under their feet. I hope and expect to see better practice emerge from DC in the future though... > > > I'm > > worried. > > Yes, well, the world is a scary place. ;-) > > I agree there's a tension between the things that DAML+OIL+DT > facilitates and some existing practice, but my mind is clear > on which should give: the broken practice. Are you suggesting that > the tension should be resolved some other way? If so, how? User education, tutorials, tools, good schema guides - sure. Having RDFS/WebOntology processors catch fire and burn when they don't like the modelling style - no thanks > > I started scribbling > an RDF modelling best-practices outline the other day: > > A) use rdf:type to model unary predicates: > P(x) becomes rdf:type(x, P) yup > B) URIs only go in about/resource attributes; don't put > them in propAttrs nor propElement content; e.g. > no: <Book title="alice..." authorHome="../xyz/homePage"/> > yes: <Book title="alice..."><authorHome resource="../xyz/homePage"/></> yes > > C) choosing a namespace: use #, not / nor ? [not 100% sure about this one, > but seems wisest at this point] two concerns here: (1) this strategy contextualises the meaning of the named-things: semantics of #foo URI refs are relative to the mime-type of the bit befoe the #. If the base resource exposes multiple mime-types (each carrying their own interpretation rules for #) we get into a muddle. We could get around this by arguing that each namespace has a 'core' mime type prioritised above any others. I've not yet seen that argument made. (2) massive schemata. I've been working with thesauri, medical classification schemes (UMLS/MesH), and most interestingly WordNet. In each case, we can project a huge database of terms into the Web. Your proposal works OK for small vocabularies, but again '#' proves problematic when we have say 50,000 classes in a single namespace. Example: I expose (through a grubby hack) wordnet at xmlns= http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/ eg. http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Web http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Document http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Person ...all return fragments of RDFS describing regions of the namespace. This lets us write <wn:Person> etc in our instance data. Compare what we'd have if I used # eg: http://xmlns.com/wordnet1.6#Person since the URI spec tells us #Person is the local part, if I go fetch data from the namespace, I have to fetch http://xmlns.com/wordnet1.6 -- what should this get? the 50,000 class RDF/XML dump of WordNet? A description of a SOAP/XP interface to the remote KB? An RDDL table of contents? All credible options, but not options I'd like to force on the entire web community. > D) things versus their names. > > Dublin core is at-risk because of C) as well as D), IMO. If you believe this, can I ask that you provide a summary of the risk as you see it that I can get onto the DCMI Architecture agenda as a matter of urgency. Extra points if you can reference W3C specs that DC's RDF implementation violates. cheers, Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST