Re: [Gzz] Space in RDF structure

[Benja Fallenstein]

Asko Soukka wrote:
> Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
>
> > As for how to view swad-chart, I would recommend going to the SWAD 
> > (root) node,
> >
> >     file:/home/connolly/w3ccvs/WWW/2000/01/sw/swad-chart#SemWeb01
>
> Hmm... I still wasn't patient enough to find it. What should I write to 
> "Goto URI" command?

Sorry, it's not in README yet. Select it from the View menu or type Ctrl-G.

> > This gives you a view closer to the one seen in the actual graph.
>
> Waiting for that, since I still don't even know what is that graph all 
> about :) ...else than nice looking maze.

Oh, haven't you seen the image rendering of it? It is linked in 
different formats (SVG, PNG, ps) from here:

    http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/

The PNG version is here:

    http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/swad-chart.png

> > Secondly, I think that having 'default properties' really goes against
> > the philosophy of RDF (IMHO). Well, you can use e.g. rdf:seeAlso if you
> > just want to specify an associative relationship, but a 'generic'
> > relationship that says nothing but, "these two nodes are related
> > *somehow* but we don't tell you how (not even whether it's relevant to a
> > human or not, etc.)"-- that doesn't sound useful.
>
> Well, I'm still heading for a tool for creating notes on lectures or from 
> books,

Sure. That's what I'm heading for, too.

> after I first buy that high-end Apple G5 Laptop.

Heh, what does that have to do with it? :-) (Oh, you probably just don't 
have a laptop yet... ok :) )

> All relations 
> I do myself _are_ relevant for me.

Sure. And to express that, they should be represented by an associative 
relationship like seeAlso, not by a relationship without a meaning.

> Since mind mapping is above all a 
> method for makin notes, I don't want to stop specifying exact property for 
> each word I add.

Sure.

> And what is difficult to implement, the 
> spatiality matters.

I think this is the critical point, and I guess I simply don't 
understand what you mean here.

To me, it seems that the connective structure matters-- X is related to 
Y, Y is related to Z. I guess I don't really know what you mean by 'the 
spatiality matters' and how you want to archieve it.

> So, on default the notepad applitude would use "unnamed" default 
> properties.

I guess you could mean the same thing as I here-- like rdf:seeAlso, or a 
hypothetical mindmap:related. Of course, these wouldn't really be 
unnamed, but they would be a generic "X associated with Y by a human" 
relationship.

But you speak in the plural. The above seems to be only a single 
relationship; how can you distinguish between multiple forms of "is 
related to"? I mean, you could distinguish between different kinds of 
relationships, but as far as I understand that's exactly what you do 
*not* want to do. So why more than one property?

> Those properties are also used to preserve spatial structure. 

This I don't understand, again.

> If user wants to use more exact properties for some relations, 
> the default properties are still used to show the structure, but the more 
> exact one is used to name the relation...

Again agreed.

> Probably should first see such Loom views 
> that shows bigger context. 

I'm looking forward to that too :-)

But after 0.1.

- Benja