RDF and dc:subject

How can I express in RDF that my article has the same dc:subject as Wikipedia's?

I can state that both URLs have the subject "The battle of Hastings". But text strings may have different meanings, even if they are equal.

I can state that my article has dc:subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_hastings. If that is the right way to do it, then the Wikipedia article must also have its own URL define its dc:subject. But that means that the article is about itself. Some pages are about themselves, e.g. Wikipedia on itself and index.rdf. But the article on the battle of Hastings is clearly about the battle, and not about itself.

I end up wanting a new Dublin Core property, say dc:hasSameSubjectAs. But maybe I'm just not well enough versed in RDF.

Illustration from W3c's validator:

RDF graph

Note that 3 occurrences of the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_hastings is drawn as one object, while the 2 occurrences of the text "The battle of Hastings" are two distinct objects. That is the essence of the difference between URLs and tags: Two identical URLs refer to the same object, while identical tags may be so by accident.


Disrespecting the pope

First, an anonymous cartoon from Newsweek 2006-10-02, Atlantic edition, page 5:


Appearently Newsweek has so much respect for the prophet, that the prophet cartoon must face away from the readers. Yet their lack of respect for the pope, allows them to accuse him of making fun of Islam.

Or is it simply that drawing the prophet is dangerous, while dissing the pope is not?

What did Benedict XVI say at the University of Regensburg, anyway?

He did quote Manuel II Paleologus' critical remarks on Islam. But he did also quote an anonymous source that said that God does not exist. So what?

Even if the emperor's remark were in error, both the remark itself, and the quotation, must be allowed.

Benedict's main message was that the Roman Catholic Church, as opposed to Islam, is built on reason (Vernunft). The English words in the Vatican's translation, are reason and reasonable. The latter usually carries positive ethical value, I don't know if the German Vernunft does.

Abraham's god demanded blind obedience, to the point of being willing to murder your own son. Does not sound reasonable. The claim that Islam is not built on Vernunft can't be controversial.

Benedict's claim on Christian Vernunft builds on the word λόγος in the beginning of of the gospel of John. That interpretation may be right, but then the bibles I have checked are wrong: they translate to English word, German Wort and Norwegian ord.

  • Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und das Wort war Gott.
  • Am Anfang war das Wort. Das Wort war bei Gott, und das Wort war Gott selbst.
  • Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.



RSS 0.91