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. 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>