Eric Miller wrote:
>
> 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.
That's a good point. Like for good pigs, we don't throw away anything ;-)
> 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 :)
<cough/>
Sure! do you want commit access?
<me-ducks/>
> 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?
Well, easy there, what I talked about was making an structured editor
given an RDFSchema... here we don't even have node types! we never
talked about a general-purpose RDF-editing tool (even if I know David is
interested in that) and for sure I'm not going to attack that problem (I
already tried in XML and saw how bottomless the pit is!)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi
Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group
Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C
77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:12:40 EST