 |
 |
Hi Karen, Thanks. Would it be odd to use foaf:primaryTopic when FOAF isn't used to describe other attributes of a concept? Ethan On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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<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<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> >>> <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> >>> <http://example.org/**wheatPenny <http://example.org/wheatPenny>> >>> "> >>> <skos:definition resource="http://example.org/****wheatPenny.xml<http://example.org/**wheatPenny.xml> >>> <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/> >>> <htt**p://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_**> >>>>>>>> <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_**<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> >>>>>>> <ht**tp://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> >>>>>>> <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/*****<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#>> >>>>>>> <htt**p://www.w3.org/1999/02/**22-rdf-**syntax-ns#<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-**syntax-ns#> >>>>>>> <http://**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<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 >