Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > <MyOriginElement rdf:ID="origin1"> > > <incstyle:remotestyle> > > <rdf:Alt> > > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="WML" xlink:href="wml.xslt"/> > > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="IE5" xlink:href="ie.xslt" > > incstyle:param="version=5"/> > > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="IE4" xlink:href="ie.xslt" > > incstyle:param="version=4"/> > > <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="other" xlink:href="default.xslt"/> > > </rdf:Alt> > > </incstyle:remotestyle> > > </MyOriginElement> > > > > Again, I even included a few bonuses, and it's still quite simple. Of > > course it does illustrate another of RDF's annoyances: that you must > > have a namespace on all attributes if you wish to them to be considered > > abbreviated properties. > > OK, syntax looks nice. How about the meaning of it? There's a land mine. What do you mean by "meaning"? > I would wonder to see the RDF schema behind "incstyle" namespace. > Please agree that no graph can be built for your example without knowing the > schema. The schema is an important part of the graph, but I do think you might overstate it a bit. Anyway, you have used one of the dreaded "S" words. By "schema", do you mean 1) Data type constraints? 2) Relational constraints? 3) Processing plan? > Also: > How do you know that WML is "Wireless Markup Language" ??? Maybe I'm missing something. <vocab:abbr> <vocab:key>WML</vocab:key> <vocab:full>Wireless Markup Language</vocab:full> </vocab:addr> > and not "Woman Man Love"? > And how do you know that sheet is an XSLT stylesheet and not ... sheetrock? > :-)) I know because I'm human and I have context to go on. The machine knows because I have defined a binding between the particular symbol and a processing plan. Where is the problem? > > Your statement makes me wonder how you understand the role of "triples" in > > RDF. I get the impression that you might not realize that they are > > simply a database and list-processing convenient representation of the > > RDF abstract model, which is a graph, just like TM's. > > Yes, but because XTM allows n-ary associations there are less nodes in the > graph. It sounds as if you are saying that because XTM allows n-ary relationships as a first-class construct that it is more efficient? I could possibly buy that, except that I know that even though the RDF spec itself only allows n-ary relationship to be expressed through indirection, that its extensibility makes this distinction meaningless. Efficiency is a matter of implementation. If I am worried about instantiating additional nodes with RDF I can enact a processing plan that minimizes this. For instance, I could create an anonymous resource that forms the "hub" of the relationship. > Well ... I must confess that I was also getting "the impression that you > might not realize that " > nothing is hardcoded in Topic Maps :-)) You are correct that I got the wrong impression from your statements. I have no problem admitting this. I'm learning here, just as I imagine you are. > By the way, if it sounds that I dislike RDF for some reason, it is wrong. > I believe that there are certain things that are better in RDF and certain > things that are better in Topic Maps. I hope that this discussion can make > this distinction a little clearer. Same here. But I never doubted that this is a syncretic discussion. -- 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
|
