On Feb 2, 2005, at 3:44 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
>
>> I think that dealing with untyped nodes in proper RDF should be a
>> higher
>> priority than dealing with non-RDF, because Piggy-Bank already goes
>> so far
>> in breaking the chicken/egg cycle of
>> not-enough-RDF-data-out-there/no-good-apps-to-take-advantage-of-RDF-
>> data. If
>> http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ can find triples in an RDF file, then
>> Piggy-Bank should be able to do something with them.
>
> I don't think it's hard to stop PB from harvesting untyped nodes, the
> problem is what do you do with them, I mean, in what category you
> place them in!
yep.
> We might have a "misc" category where all the untyped stuff ends up
> being.... but honestly, I think it's a lot better, at this stage, to
> kinda "push" people to type their data rather than adjusting PB to
> digest their unflavored one ;-)
I'd suggest that a 'misc' (or something) category eventually makes
sense. As one navigates, and runs across more RDF data, the type of
information associated with a resource may be merged or inferred. At
that point the resources would move from the 'misc' category into
something(s) else.
Further, I think it would also eventually be handy to allow the end
user to associate one or more type(s) with these at any time. The
ability to add comments now to this is a good start, but there is more
than can, should be done ... plus enabling user / RDF editing is on the
list of Simile deliverables :)
That being said, like you mentioned I like the idea of using this
'feature' of not rendering untyped nodes as a means for getting people
to type their work. Focusing work on fresnel and RDF editing, however,
should enable the end user to do (smarter) things with unknown /
untyped data. Make sense?
--
eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Wed Feb 02 2005 - 21:10:09 EST