Just thought I'd mention that there is of course nothing
in rdf that can stop anyone giving things names. So that
the blank node could be given a name such as
tag:example.com/versionid
tag:example.com/versionid a :Entry;
:title [ :value Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok;
:type
, but also
inverse functional
symmetric and transitive)
This seems to work pretty well for most purposes - an
application could either take the forget older entry versions
processing model, or accumulate all the versions.
yes.
But when it comes to
saying what the entry in about, I think you'd
for categorizing entries, but does it really
tell us what the entry is about? For instance, suppose that I want
to indicate that an entry is about http://www.ibm.com and file that
in a category called technology? The categorization of the entry is
different than the subject of the entry.. tho
Bill de hÓra wrote:
For instance, suppose that I want to
indicate that an entry is about http://www.ibm.com and file that in a
category called technology? The categorization of the entry is
different than the subject of the entry.. tho both are definitely related.
There are two
James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hÓra wrote:
For instance, suppose that I want to
indicate that an entry is about http://www.ibm.com and file that in a
category called technology? The categorization of the entry is
different than the subject of the entry.. tho both are definitely
related.
James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so thus far: we can indicate resources that are related to the given
entry; we can indicate that an entry is a reply to another entry; we can
specify categories to which the entry belongs; but there is currently no
way of indicating the *subject* of the entry.
The
Bill de hÓra wrote:
The link approach doesn't seem to be less ambiguous than dc:subject. For
lessened ambiguity you might want to use published subject indicators a
la topic maps.
It is less ambiguous in that a URI is less ambiguous that some
arbitrary text string. Further, the link
James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hÓra wrote:
The link approach doesn't seem to be less ambiguous than dc:subject. For
lessened ambiguity you might want to use published subject indicators a
la topic maps.
It is less ambiguous in that a URI is less ambiguous that some
arbitrary text
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-21 21:25]:
Ok, so thus far: we can indicate resources that are related to
the given entry; we can indicate that an entry is a reply to
another entry; we can specify categories to which the entry
belongs; but there is currently no way of indicating
it
really tell us what the entry is about? For instance, suppose that
I want to indicate that an entry is about http://www.ibm.com and
file that in a category called technology? The categorization of
the entry is different than the subject of the entry.. tho both are
definitely related
10 matches
Mail list logo
