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.
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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
|
