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
>
|
