No, the richer ontology is not an RDF vocabulary, but it adheres to linked
I'm looking to do something like this example of embedding mods in rdf:
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.
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.
> 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
> > 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
> > what property adequately addresses this relation, semantically.
> > Recommendations?
> > Thanks,
> > Ethan