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"> <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"> <skos:definition resource="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/ 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_** >>>> 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>" >>>> /> >>>> <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#> >>>> " >>>> xml: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 >>>>>>>