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
|
