 |
 |
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