RE: Re: NOT SPAM: a request for information!

I remember that conversation, it is archived here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xfml/message/346
(Thank god for public archives!)

What Danny is referring to is the fact that facets need to be designed
"exclusive", so "Places to go" and "Places to eat" wouldn't make good
facets because a certain restaurant could be a topic in both. I don't
believe this could ever be enforced by a language like XML or RDF or any
other since it is a subjective call a human needs to make.

And indeed, xfml could be expressed as RDF fairly easily - in fact an
earlier version of XFML was expressed as RDF.
Peter

>  I'm very impressed by the work that you're doing.
>  I see from the white paper that you're representing the 
>  facets as RDF properties, was wondering if/how you impose 
>  the disjointed nature of facets over and above the 
>  taxonomies. I briefly looked into expressing XFML in RDF, 
>  and found there was everything available within the RDF(S) 
>  layer except this aspect, which is available in DAML+OIL or 
>  OWL. (I was told at the time that this constraint in XFML 
>  was intended to be handled by the human and/or application 
>  rather than expressed in the language, so effectively XFML 
>  info could be expressed in RDF(S) as-is).
>  
>  Cheers,
>  Danny.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/0bmwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------
Thanks for playing. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/