[RDF] Re: RDF

[Stefan Andersson]

> > Web Resource Application Framework (WRAF) key features:
> >
> > WRAF is primarily designed as a platform for:
> > =B7 Data-driven web applications with complex class hierarchies and
> > inter-resource relations, such as metadata repositories, topic
> > communities and intranets.
>=20
> Resource is an RDF term.  I would say inter-object relations.

Ahh, but I was trying to make a point - we're not really dealing with
'objects' as commonly understood, right? We're dealing with
'whatchamacallits', right? Hence 'resources'. I'd say the terms 'object'
and 'resource' are not interchangeable.

>  - Metadata repositories  (examples?)

Yahoo. DMOZ. Directory servers. Data about things. The 'repository' bit
is to emphasize the distributed nature of it.

>  - Topic communities  (what is that exactly?)

Paranormal. Every other community centered around a topic. I.e. every
other community.

>  - Intranets  (examples?)

Whoa! Employee data, project data, supplier/customer/client data,
documentation, administrative data. Everything cross-linked.

> We should compile a list of possible uses.  I add this task at SF (unde=
r
> Documentation tasks).

Right!
=20
> > =B7 Applications collecting, processing and presenting information fr=
om
> > many sources, distributed over many processes.
>=20
> Or distrebuted over many domains from diffrent organizations.

Yes. Domains, organizations and processes. What a fine mess we're
cooking. ;-D
=20
> > =B7 Intelligent agents and robots.
>=20
> How intelligent? ;)

Not-very at the moment, of course, but just maybe smart enough to get
some real work done... and I'm still convinced, as is the
Mozilla-RDF-folks, that a generic inferencing mechanism on the client
side, coupled with a flexible presentation/UI layer, would be a _good_
thing.

> > =B7 Dynamic content, where the content selection and presentation is =
a
> > result of complex dependencies.
>=20
> Yes. Examples would be good.

one2one is somewhat outdated, but personalization (preference by
tracking), collaborative filtering (if I like A and B, and you like A,
maybe you like B too), content screening (no filthy language for me),
target media (WAP sucks, gimme broadband!), skins (I always wanted a
more sci-fi-look to my Yahoo), preferences (language, search results per
screen) and community trust relationships (ePinions) are some others.
=20
> > WRAF offers
> > =B7 an consistent interface to and between multiple information sourc=
es
> > =B7 the possibility of rich data and metadata modeling through inheri=
tance
> > =B7 an open, standardized and extensible way of describing and exchan=
ging
> > resources, inter- as well as intraorganizational.
>=20
> The resource exchange is going to take much work.  The goal is that the
> process will be cumulative. That is: that it will be possible to extend
> and grow the system without the old definitions becomming a burden.  Th=
at
> is at least my vision.

Of course. This text was somewhat meant as 'hoopla' - what we're aiming
at, not what we have at the moment!

> > WRAF is built upon
>=20
> Here we go...

... again, here we go, go, go, to the temple of consumption...

> > =B7 RDF-Schema, the W3C standard for schema modelling under RDF
>=20
> RDF-Schema is a candidate recommendation. This means that there is stil=
l
> time for the W3C members to comment on this thing. W3C wan't to see a f=
ew
> real implementations in order to be satisfied with RDFS.

Lets give it to them, then, shall we? ;-D
=20
> > =B7 RDF-XML, the W3C standard for expressing RDF data in XML.
>=20
> This is called the RDF Syntax.

I know, but I thought having 'XML' somewhere in it would look good.
=20
> > =B7 RDF QDS, an query definition schema modelled in RDF.
>=20
> This is post 1.0

Actually, I see it as more of parallell endeavours. A QDS can be
designed outside of WRAF. Although, QDS is probably some way away. Mind
you, we will pretty quick need some way of describing subsets of models.
=20
> > =B7 RDF SDS - The Serialisation Definition Schema is used to describe
> > transformations between a RDF DLG and serialized formats, such as
> > RDF-XML, native XML, [X]HTML, WML, et.c.
>=20
> Ok.  I wonder if maby its best to have some sort of template system in
> combination with SDS? You still want to do some form of layout.

Actually - I think it's pretty much up to the implementers. I think we
will probably have both. But I still feel a SDS is the coolest way to
go. Probably the slowest, most inefficient as well. Oh, well.

> Should we realy go for a system like SmartWorks?

Well, the same applies here. Some people will write apps using the RDF
classes.
Some may even do a SmartWorker-type inheritance-style app framework.

Me, I have a vision of code-less systems development. The user just
describes his reality and his needs, and the system is smart enough to
give him a place to store his reality, present it (to himself and
others) and combine it with other peoples views on reality. That is
actually what I think that more than 50% of applications do anyway, and
probably more than 75% of web applications...
=20
> > =B7 WRAF XML SDS - A base SDS for expressing RDF as XML
> > =B7 WRAF [X]HTML SDS - A base SDS for expressing RDF resources as [X]=
HTML
>=20
> This is also two diffrent contexts. Either you wan't to transfer the
> requested information (XML) or you wan't to present the information.

I don't see this as two different contexts. To transfer, you'll have to
present. The 'present' you're thinking of is when information is to be
'transferred' to a human mind.

>  For
> information presentation, there will be a lot of supporting style and
> markers and things.

Yup. Hence 'Serialization Description Schema'. I see RDF-Syntax as one
SDS.
=20
> I would like to see some more details on this.
>=20
> In any case. SDS is post 1.0

The same applies to this as to QDS. And, because I'm the one bitchin'
about both SDS and QDS, it'll probably happen post
'Stefan-getting-the-thumb-out'.
=20
> > WRAF IE - The Inference Engine enables applications that do not share
> > data definitions to identify and bridge RDF Schema incompatibilities.
>=20
> That's new.=20

Yeah. But not really. We've discussed it. I just thought I'd put it up
there with all the other visions. This is something we could start
discussing. 'Rules of inference'. Sounds lika a DS9 episode...

> > Currently, all functionality is implemented as an UNIX service deamon
> > with a cgi/mod_perl client.
>=20
> It will be. :)  We prototype worked that way. But there is no reason to
> start using the deamon before the cache functionality is in place.

But it sounds nice... ;-D
=20
> > The RDF, RDF-XML and RDF-Schema are open W3C standards. The RDF DB, W=
RAF
> > API and WRAF IE are open source as per GNU Public License, and will b=
e
> > given to CPAN upon completion. The RDF QDS and SDS will be submitted =
as
> > standards proposals upon completion.
>=20
> Isn't this a little ambitious?

I thought this WAS an ambitious venture? I really think that if we
succeed in creating sound, working, schemas, we should submit them. If
they're not accepted, at least we created the hoopla, so somebody else
would be inspired to make it happen.

> If can find financial support, I bet that Meta Matrix would like to hel=
p
> out here.

Any witch way is up.

Take care,
/Stefan