It should actually be foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf (the inverse of foaf:primaryTopic).
It's fine to use it with your skos:Concept because the domain is an
owl:Thing (that is, any RDF resource) and the range is a foaf:Document
(which can be any document of any kind), again that's the advantage of
RDF.
That said, it's a little hard to figure out if that's an ideal
property for your use case.
It might make more sense to mint your own property and embed your nuds
document in there (as an XMLLiteral type), since this seems like it's
only going to be specialized usage, anyway.
-Ross.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Ethan Gruber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>>
|
