norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2004/10/04/modelHacking/comments.atom2012-05-22T19:10:33.283301ZComment 1 on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012004-10-04T07:36:33Z2004-10-04T07:36:33ZLeo Sauermannda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Jip, an attendee of the foafCamp, has a similiar photopage. He has a very impressive collection of depictions, annotated with WN. see f.e. http://www.kwark.org/Gfx/2004/2004Week40/dscn8438.BergEnDal.jpg.html perhaps you should discuss with him some mutual standard.... my 2 bits: x foaf:depicts y is easier than x foaf:depicts _ _ rdf:type y (more inference work, etc) but semantically you are right with the second go. so perhaps stick with it.

Comment 2 on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022004-10-04T09:02:06Z2004-10-04T09:02:06ZDannyda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

If the first relationship doesn't work, isn't the problem carried over into the revised version? i.e.
#1
rabbitPicture depicts rabbitWord
#2
rabbitPicture depicts _:bunny
_:bunny type rabbitWord
It's a bit early in the day here, so I could be way off the mark, but making the word resource into an rdfs:Class doesn't seem to add enough indirection. My first thought was perhaps:
#3
rabbitPicture depicts _:bunny
rabbitWord denotes _:bunny
But that still doesn't seem right somehow. I don't think its handling the Rabbit as class/species and Rabbit as instance/Benjamin Fluffytail thing properly. But then it starts getting a bit longwinded -
#4
picture depicts _:benji
rabbitWord denotes _:rabbit
_:benji type _:rabbit
Dunno. [I give up on the formatting too...]

Comment 3 on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032004-10-04T11:11:42Z2004-10-04T11:11:42ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I share your concern, Danny, but the folks on #foaf seemed comfortable with a single level of indirection. It probably deserves more discussion, though.

Comment 4 on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042004-10-04T11:26:59Z2004-10-04T11:26:59ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

I needn't have been concerned: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/foaf/2004-10-04#T11-20-52

Comment 5 on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00052004-10-04T11:45:17Z2004-10-04T11:45:17ZDannyda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Got it. Perhaps an amendment to "Technically, what that says is that my picture depicts the Wordnet word “Rabbit”." is in order..?

Comment 6 on /2004/10/04/modelHackinghttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00062004-10-04T14:19:20Z2004-10-04T14:19:20ZDamianda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

...why on earth is the attribute rdf:nodeID used for both the ID and the reference to that ID!?

I guess you're thinking of id and idref here, but that's pretty different. What's happening is you're getting two statements:

<http://norman.walsh.name/path/to/my/picture> foaf:depicts _:b1 .

and

_:b1 rdf:type <http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Rabbit>

'b1' is a reference in both cases (well, an existentially quantified variable). Indeed literals are the only solid things in RDF, apart from them it's all refs.

(The weird case is rdf:about and rdf:resource, which are only different for historical reasons.)