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">
<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">
<skos:definition resource="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/
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_**
>>>> 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>"
>>>> />
>>>> <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#>
>>>> "
>>>> xml: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
>>>>>>>
|
