W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2007

POWDER for publishing status

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:22:15 +0100
To: public-powderwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200712051722.15561.Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>

Hi all!

I've missed participating in this group, and haven't forgotten the work that 
was done and noted with interest your progress.

Now, I'm working for a consultancy called Computas, and we have a customer 
that wants a completely semweb-based system ("portal") for organising, 
provide navigation, searching and evaluating web resources. It is a pretty 
cool project, actually.

They're not doing quality assurance, at least not yet, but one of the users 
are doing (or wants to do in some future) things like similar to what Medieq 
does (and I have made them aware of that project). However, we're not going 
that far for now, but we need to support a certain workflow. 

Essentially, resources can be suggested by users, then annotated by some 
editors, before they are approved by an administrator. Then, it might be set 
inactive if it becomes temporarily unavailable.

So, my idea was to use POWDER to support this functionality. All our data is 
in a SPARQL database, so the fact that it is RDF helps a lot.

Now, I've understood that right now, the specifications should be taken with a 
cup of salt, but I guess we could come to a understanding of how this should 
be done?

Say, there is a website http://example.com/meds/how-to-take-our-pill
and a portal owner http://example.org/medical-library/
Then, I need a description resource without a scope, but use wdr:describedBy 

So, the following triples

<http://example.com/meds/how-to-take-our-pill> wdr:describedBy 
<http://example.org/drs/approved>

<http://example.org/drs/approved> a wdr:DR;
        foaf:maker <http://example.org/medical-library/> ;
        wdr:hasDescriptors [ a  wdr:Descriptors ;
                           ex:level "approved" ] .

(with reservations that my turtle blank nodes are not right, I hope you get 
the intention)

Then, I would actually have to duplicate most of it for the next approval 
level, wouldn't I? So, if I have a "inactive" page, the DR would be:

<http://example.org/drs/inactive> a wdr:DR;
        foaf:maker <http://example.org/medical-library/> ;
        wdr:hasDescriptors [ a  wdr:Descriptors ;
                           ex:level "inactive" ] .

One way I can see to avoid this duplication is to link directly to the 
Descriptors, but then I would loose the attribution. But then, I don't 
actually need attribution in every statement... Do we have any clever ways to 
make this more compact? Or should it be done in a totally different way?


Cheers,

Kjetil Kjernsmo
-- 
Senior Knowledge Engineer
Direct: +47 6783 1136 | Mobile: +47 986 48 234
Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com   
Web: http://www.computas.com/

|  SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE  |

Computas AS  Vollsveien 9, PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | 
Fax:+47 6783 1001

IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This message may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not use, copy or distribute it. Do not open any attachments. Delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:22:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT