 |
 |
On 2/13/12 1:43 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > Thanks. That does make sense. Hopefully others will weigh in with > agreement (or disagreement). Sometimes these semantic languages are so > flexible that it's unsettling. There are a million ways to do something > with only de facto standards rather than restricted schemas. For what it's > worth, the metadata files describe coin-types, an intellectual concept in > numismatics succinctly described at > http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/coin_type.htm, not physical > objects in a collection. I believe this is similar to what FOAF does with "primary topic": http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_primaryTopic In FOAF that usually points to a web page ABOUT the subject of the FOAF data, so a wikipedia web page about Stephen King would get this "primary topic" property. Presuming that your XML is http:// accessible, it might fit into this model. kc > > Ethan > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Patrick Murray-John< > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Ethan, >> >> The semantics do seem odd there. It doesn't seem like a skos:Concept would >> typically link to a metadata record about -- if I'm following you right -- >> a specific coin. Is this sort of a FRBRish approach, where your >> skos:Concept is similar to the abstraction of a frbr:Work (that is, the >> idea of a particular coin), where your metadata records are really >> describing the common features of a particular coin? >> >> If that's close, it seems like the richer metadata is really a sort of >> definition of the skos:Concept, so maybe skos:definition would do the >> trick? Something like this: >> >> ex:wheatPenny a skos:Concept ; >> skos:prefLabel "Wheat Penny" ; >> skos:definition "Your richer, non RDF metadata document describing the >> front and back, years minted, etc." >> >> In XML that might be like: >> >> <skos:Concept about="http://example.org/**wheatPenny<http://example.org/wheatPenny> >> "> >> <skos:prefLabel>Wheat Penny</skos:prefLabel> >> <skos:definition> >> Your richer, non RDF metadata document describing the front and back, >> years minted, etc. >> </skos:definition> >> </skos:Concept> >> >> >> It might raise an eyebrow to have, instead of a literal value for >> skos:definition, another set of structured, non RDF metadata. Better in >> that case to go with a document reference, and make your richer metadata a >> standalone document with its own URI: >> >> ex:wheatPenny skos:definition ex:wheatPennyDefinition**.xml >> >> <skos:Concept about="http://example.org/**wheatPenny<http://example.org/wheatPenny> >> "> >> <skos:definition resource="http://example.org/**wheatPenny.xml<http://example.org/wheatPenny.xml>" >> /> >> </skos:Concept> >> >> I'm looking at the Documentation as a Document Reference section in SKOS >> Primer : http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/**NOTE-skos-primer-20090818/<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skos-primer-20090818/> >> >> Again, if I'm following, that might be the closest approach. >> >> Hope that helps, >> Patrick >> >> >> >> On 02/11/2012 09:53 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote: >> >>> Hi Patrick, >>> >>> The richer metadata model is an ontology for describing coins. It is more >>> complex than, say, VRA Core or MODS, but not as hierarchically complicated >>> as an EAD finding aid. I'd like to link a skos:Concept to one of these >>> related metadata records. It doesn't matter if I use skos, owl, etc. to >>> describe this relationship, so long as it is a semantically appropriate >>> choice. >>> >>> Ethan >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Murray-John< >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Ethan, >>>> >>>> Maybe I'm being daft in missing it, but could I ask about more details in >>>> the richer metadata model? My hunch is that, depending on the details of >>>> the information you want to bring in, there might be more precise >>>> alternatives to what's in SKOS. Are you aiming to have a link between a >>>> skos:Concept and texts/documents related to that concept? >>>> >>>> Patrick >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02/11/2012 03:14 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ross, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the input. My main objective is to make the richer metadata >>>>> available one way or another to people using our web services. Do you >>>>> think it makes more sense to link to a URI of the richer metadata >>>>> document >>>>> as skos:related (or similar)? I've seen two uses for skos:related--one >>>>> to >>>>> point to related skos:concepts, the other to point to web resources >>>>> associated with that concept, e.g., a wikipedia article. I have a >>>>> feeling >>>>> the latter is incorrect, at least according to the documentation I've >>>>> read >>>>> on the w3c. For what it's worth, VIAF uses owl:sameAs/@rdf:resource to >>>>> point to dbpedia and other web resources. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Ethan >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Ross Singer<[log in to unmask]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ethan Gruber<[log in to unmask]> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ross, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, the richer ontology is not an RDF vocabulary, but it adheres to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> linked >>>>>> >>>>>> data concepts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmm, ok. That doesn't necessarily mean it will work in RDF. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking to do something like this example of embedding mods in >>>>>>> rdf: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.daisy.org/zw/ZedAI_****Meta_Data_-_MODS_**<http://www.daisy.org/zw/ZedAI_**Meta_Data_-_MODS_**> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Recommendation#RDF.2FXML_2<htt**p://www.daisy.org/zw/ZedAI_** >>>>>> Meta_Data_-_MODS_**Recommendation#RDF.2FXML_2<http://www.daisy.org/zw/ZedAI_Meta_Data_-_MODS_Recommendation#RDF.2FXML_2> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, I'll be honest, that looks terrible to me. This looks, to me, >>>>>> like kind of a misunderstanding of RDF and RDF/XML. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regardless, this would make useless RDF (see below). One of the hard >>>>>> things to understand about RDF, especially when you're coming at it >>>>>> from XML (and, by association, RDF/XML) is that RDF isn't >>>>>> hierarchical, it's a graph. This is one of the reasons that the XML >>>>>> serialization is so awkward: it looks something familiar XML people, >>>>>> but it doesn't work well with their tools (XPath, for example) despite >>>>>> the fact that it, you know, should. It's equally frustrating for RDF >>>>>> people because it's really verbose and its syntax can come in a >>>>>> million variations (more on that later in the email) making it >>>>>> excruciatingly hard to parse. >>>>>> >>>>>> These semantic ontologies are so flexible, it seems like I *can* do >>>>>> >>>>>>> anything, so I'm left wondering what I *should* do--what makes the >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> sense, semantically. Is it possible to nest rdf:Description into the >>>>>>> skos:Concept of my previous example, and then >>>>>>> place<nuds:nuds>.....more >>>>>>> sophistated model......</nuds:nuds> into rdf:Description (or >>>>>>> >>>>>>> alternatively, >>>>>> >>>>>> set rdf:Description/@rdf:resource to the URI of the web-accessible XML >>>>>>> >>>>>>> file? >>>>>> >>>>>> Most RDF examples I've looked at online either have skos:Concept or >>>>>>> rdf:Description, not both, either at the same context in rdf:RDF or >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> nested inside the other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, this is a little tough to explain via email, I think. This is >>>>>>> >>>>>> what I was referring to earlier about the myriad ways to render RDF in >>>>>> XML. >>>>>> >>>>>> In short, using: >>>>>> <skos:Concept about="http://example.org/foo"****> >>>>>> <skos:prefLabel>Something</****skos:prefLabel> >>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>> </skos:Concept> >>>>>> >>>>>> is shorthand for: >>>>>> >>>>>> <rdf:Description about="http://example.org/foo"****> >>>>>> <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/****2004/02/skos/core#Concept<http://www.w3.org/**2004/02/skos/core#Concept> >>>>>> <http**://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/**core#Concept<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept> >>>>>>> " >>>>>> /> >>>>>> <skos:prefLabel>Something</****skos:prefLabel> >>>>>> >>>>>> </rdf:Description> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, yeah, you use one or the other. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said, I'm not sure your ontology is really going to work well, >>>>>> you'll just have to try it. One thing that would probably be useful >>>>>> would be to serialize out a document with your nuds vocabulary as >>>>>> rdf/xml and then use something like rapper (comes with the redland >>>>>> libraries) to convert it to something more RDF-friendly, like turtle, >>>>>> and see if it makes any sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, your daisy example above: >>>>>> >>>>>> <rdf:RDF >>>>>> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/*** >>>>>> *1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#<http://www.w3.org/**1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> >>>>>> <htt**p://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-**syntax-ns#<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> >>>>>>> >>>>>> " >>>>>> xml:mods="http://www.daisy.****org/RDF/MODS< >>>>>> http://www.daisy.**org/RDF/MODS<http://www.daisy.org/RDF/MODS>> >>>>>> "> >>>>>> >>>>>> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="daisy-dtbook2005-**** >>>>>> exemplar-01"> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:titleInfo> >>>>>> <mods:title>World Cultures and >>>>>> Geography</mods:title> >>>>>> </mods:titleInfo> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:name> >>>>>> <mods:namePart>Sarah Witham >>>>>> Bednarz</mods:namePart> >>>>>> <mods:role> >>>>>> <mods:roleTerm >>>>>> mods:type="text">author</mods:****roleTerm> >>>>>> >>>>>> </mods:role> >>>>>> </mods:name> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:name> >>>>>> <mods:namePart>Inés M. >>>>>> Miyares</mods:namePart> >>>>>> <mods:role> >>>>>> <mods:roleTerm >>>>>> mods:type="text">author</mods:****roleTerm> >>>>>> >>>>>> </mods:role> >>>>>> </mods:name> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:name> >>>>>> <mods:namePart>Mark C. >>>>>> Schug</mods:namePart> >>>>>> <mods:role> >>>>>> <mods:roleTerm >>>>>> mods:type="text">author</mods:****roleTerm> >>>>>> >>>>>> </mods:role> >>>>>> </mods:name> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:name> >>>>>> <mods:namePart>Charles S. >>>>>> White</mods:namePart> >>>>>> <mods:role> >>>>>> <mods:roleTerm >>>>>> mods:type="text">author</mods:****roleTerm> >>>>>> >>>>>> </mods:role> >>>>>> </mods:name> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:originInfo> >>>>>> <mods:publisher>DAISY >>>>>> Consortium</mods:publisher> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:dateCreated>2005-01-14</****mods:dateCreated> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:version>3</mods:version> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:dateModified>2005-07-27<****/mods:dateModified> >>>>>> >>>>>> </mods:originInfo> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:relatedItem mods:type="original"> >>>>>> <mods:originInfo> >>>>>> <mods:publisher>McDougal >>>>>> Littell</mods:publisher> >>>>>> <mods:place>Evanston, >>>>>> Illinois</mods:place> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:dateCreated>2003</mods:****dateCreated> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:originInfo> >>>>>> </mods:relatedItem> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:identifier >>>>>> mods:type="isbn10">0618168419<****/mods:identifier> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:typeOfResource>text</**** >>>>>> mods:typeOfResource> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:physicalDescription> >>>>>> <mods:form>Hardcover print</mods:form> >>>>>> </mods:physicalDescription> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:subject>Geography</mods:****subject> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:language>en</mods:****language> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mods:note mods:type="description">****Culture >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> geography textbook >>>>>> for highschool</mods:note> >>>>>> >>>>>> <rdf:Description> >>>>>> >>>>>> </rdf:RDF> >>>>>> >>>>>> rapper turns this into: >>>>>> >>>>>> <file:///home/ross/tmp/daisy.****xml#daisy-dtbook2005-**exemplar-**01> >>>>>> >>>>>> mods:titleInfo [ >>>>>> a mods:title >>>>>> ] . >>>>>> >>>>>> [] >>>>>> a mods:namePart . >>>>>> >>>>>> which is not terribly useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess what I'm saying is that RDF/XML isn't really intended to be >>>>>> used as XML nor is it terribly useful in that capacity because >>>>>> 'native' XML-based schemas are, by definition, hierarchical (plus they >>>>>> aren't constrained by the E-A-V model). RDF/XML is really just a >>>>>> standardized way to share RDF graphs (the first and now most maligned >>>>>> way, really) that happened to use XML because there was plumbing for >>>>>> XML there already (parsers, mime-types, etc.), but it shouldn't really >>>>>> be mistaken for 'XML'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try your data in rapper and see if your resources model correctly, >>>>>> otherwise I would suggest making a custom vocabulary based on your >>>>>> ontology that conforms better to RDFS or OWL. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good luck, >>>>>> -Ross. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Ethan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Ross Singer<[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole advantage of RDF is that you can pull properties from >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> vocabularies (as long as they're not logically disjoint). So, assuming >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> richer ontology is some kind of RDF vocabulary, this exactly *what* >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> should be doing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Ross. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Ethan Gruber<[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm working on an RDF model for describing concepts. I have >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> skos:Concept >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> nested inside rdf:RDF. Most documents will have little more than >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> labels >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and related links inside of skos:Concept. However, for a certain >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> type of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> concept, we have XML documents with a more sophisticated ontology and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> structure for describing the concept. I could embed this metadata >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RDF or reference it as an rdf:resource. It doesn't matter much to me >>>>>>>>> either way, but I'm unsure of the semantically correct way to create >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suppose I have: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <rdf:RDF> >>>>>>>>> <skos:Concept rdf:about="URI"> >>>>>>>>> <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">Label</skos:****prefLabel> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <nuds:nuds>.....more sophistated model......</nuds:nuds> >>>>>>>>> </skos:Concept> >>>>>>>>> </rdf:RDF> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it okay to have the more sophistated metadata model embedded in >>>>>>>>> skos:Concept alongside labels and related links? Suppose I want to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> store >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the more sophisticated metadata separately and reference it? I'm not >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what property adequately addresses this relation, semantically. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recommendations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Ethan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet