[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)

• From: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>,Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>,Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@c...>
• Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:56:16 -0500

Hi Jonathan,

Didier said:
...
> Seriously, it would help tremendously if the rdf capabilities could be
> inherited like the linking capabilities are. This would turn links into
> smart links. So in the example above, an rdf interpreter would know that a
> <resource> element is an rdf description - would know that it is about the
> resource identified by xlink:href.

Jonathan said:
	There is already a clearcut mapping of XLink to RDF. Furthermore using a
particular type of RDF parsing (parseType='Resource') *arbitrary* XML can be
parsed into RDF triples. I have written an XSLT which performs Xlink -> RDF
and parses arbitrary XML into RDF triples:

	http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/rdfExtractify.xsl

Didier replies:
You are right Jonathan, we can translate a collection of links into RDF
expressions and then reduce the document potential processes to RDF
processing.  However, the main point is that if we can get an notation that
merges both, the same document can be interpreted in two different ways:
a) as a link base
b) as a metadata base - or frames providing information about resources.
It means that an Xlink interpreter and an RDF interpreter can provide two
different interpretations of the same document. By doing so, we just
increase the number of facets on how this document is revealed to us. Take a
phenomenological position where an object is revealed by a point of view. We
than now provide more than one point of view to this document. A linkage
point of view and an information about resources point of view. This implies
that we just increased the value this document may intrinsically possess.

cheers
Didier

• References:
  • RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
• Next by Date: RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
• Previous by thread: RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
• Next by thread: RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread