W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [Fwd: Re: Serialization skos:Concept vs owl:Thing vs rdf..]

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:54:21 +0100
Message-Id: <0D3947F4-48D1-411F-A30B-5B4CDB8287B0@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Simon Jupp'" <simon.jupp@manchester.ac.uk>, <steve.richard@azgs.az.gov>, "'Guillame Duclaux'" <Guillaume.Duclaux@csiro.au>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, <Jacqueline.Githaiga@csiro.au>
To: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>

On 16 Sep 2009, at 16:44, Simon Cox wrote:

> ...

> The target audience comes from an XML/XSD background, so there is  
> an initial challenge in getting over the RDF data-model humps (e.g.  
> the fact that many serializations are fully equivalent).


> This would be easier if the tools did not all-of-a-sudden munge the  
> resource types (even if the munging is correct according to RDF/OWL  
> model).
> But perhaps I've just got to get over that.

That's a cross that many of us have had to bear...:-)

> Meanwhile, the goal we are pursuing a 'simple' vocabulary service  
> interface, to complement the first S in SKOS.
> i.e. given a basic vocabulary model (SKOS), with a limited gamut of  
> resource and property types, to provide a small set of queries  
> optimised to these.
> Our approach is to implement this on top of SPARQL, so the queries  
> must be expressible in SPARQL.
>
> I just checked the documentation prepared by my developer, mapping  
> the queries to SPARQL (https://twiki.auscope.org/twiki/bin/view/ 
> Grid/VocabularyService02).
> It turns out that all the queries we have implemented so far rely  
> only on the SKOS properties, and are independent of the resource type.
> So it turns out that it does not matter to the query engine whether  
> the resources are skos:Concepts, rdf:Descriptions, owl:Things, or  
> foo:Bars.
> It does matter to some XSLT processing tools that we have  
> developed, but I guess that points to the fact that SPARQL etc is  
> the appropriate interface for processing RDF, not XSLT.

Absolutely. Working with the underlying RDF graph rather than its  
concrete serialization is (IMO) the right thing to do, and SPARQL,  
rather than XSLT will give you that.

	Sean

--
Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk
http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 14:55:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:04 GMT