Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> <rdf:Description > about="http://spam.com#Malatesta" > type="http://art.org#Patron"> > [...] > > Didier replies > I know you wont agree on this but what I would like to see is > <topic xlink:type="extended" etc...> > <resource xlink:type="locator" rdf:type="http://art.org#Patron" > xlink:href="about="http://spam.com#Malatesta"> > .... property list for this frame ..... > </resource> > </topic> > > In some ways an rdf element is a frame (like AI frames), if rdf:type is > present it is no longer a free form frame but more a defined record, if the > rdf:type is not present, it is a free form frame. This said, now the problem > is for an RDF engine to recognize the this particular element is an rdf > element. Hmm. I actually don't have a problem with your use of XLinks here, and I might be misunderstanding you, but I think you might be getting a bit hung up on the serialization. But let me first of all see if I understand what you're saying. Would you find the following suitable? <rdf:Description about="http://spam.com#Malatesta"> <foo:name>Sigismundo Malatesta</foo:name> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description about="http://spam.com#Malatesta"> <rdf:type resource="http://art.org#Patron"/> </rdf:Description> or even <art:Patron about="http://spam.com#Malatesta"> <foo:name>Sigismundo Malatesta</foo:name> </art:Patron> both of which are equivalent to the original <rdf:Description about="http://spam.com#Malatesta" type="http://art.org#Patron" foo:name="Sigismundo Malatesta" /> If one of these suit you, then I think you're drawing a false parallel with frames. Frames are more analogous to the resource in the resulting abstract model. > possible solutions: > a) rdf recognizes xlink:href as equivalent to the "about" attribute, this > would imply that an rdf frame is a link. hummm, not convinced that this is a > good idea because it does not make sense for the other RDF usages. I don't like this either. XLink is too broadly used (and useful) for this not to cause a potential explosion of noise in the model. > b) to define a free form type like for example > rdf:type="http://www.w3.org#frame". In this case we state that this element > is a free form frame and not a record defined by a type. But if the rdf > element is conformant to a certain structure and is therefore an instance of > a certain class, then we would have instead > rdf:type="http://art.org#Patron". I prefer this solution since it allows us > to include a free form or defined collection of properties for a particular > "locator". Maybe I need to see more clearly the problem you're trying to solve. The *only* "built-in" thing an RDF type does not is provide for predicate constraints. One does not have to use these. So you are free to view the rdf:type as just one slot in the frame. > I am not trying to convince you Oche, just showing that if elements could > inherit the rdf frame behavior (defined record or free form frame) this > would lead to a tremendous useful thing for knowledge management. Please do try to convince me. I hope I didn't make you think I was implacable with the early business with "but". I'm happy to be convinced, abused, or disabused, as long as the agent in question is prepared to accept the same treatment. ;-) -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
