W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Annotating our specs with RDF...

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 13:10:19 +0200
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E6C81422-D700-4D46-9D0C-441625B6C50A@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>

On Jul 4, 2010, at 19:55 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> Okay.... I was talking with Manu yesterday and I decided we should really be annotating our specs with RDF - via RDFa of course.  I then decided I should just extend ReSpec.js (the framework we are using to publish) to just do this for us magically.  So far, so good.  I went in, made changes, got it all working, and hit a wall.
> 
> This is embarrassing, but after all this time I STILL don't really grok RDF.  Here's an example.  Our documents have a title.  dcterms has a title term in its vocabulary.  Great!  So, I want to express in RDF that this document has a title of whatever our title is....
> 
> <title about="" property="dcterms:title">our title</title>
> 
> That *seems* right to me.  I will get a triple that has a subject of the current document, a predicate of title, and an object of the title string.  Is that right?  Is that how a real RDF semweb person would do this?

Yes:-) (if you consider me a real RDF semweb person, that is...)

> 
> What about the Abstract?  The bibo vocabulary has an abstract term.  Great!  Our sections are surrounded by 'div's, so....
> 
> <div id="abstract" resource="#abstract" rel="bibo:abstract"><h2>....
> 
> Is that right?  Am I saying this document (the about is inherited) has an abstract at some URI?  That seems backwards to me.  It seems more sensible to say:
> 
> <div id="abstract" resource="#abstract" rev="bibo:abstract"><h2>....
> 
> This URI is the abstract for this document...  Or.... maybe the thing shouldn't be a pointer at all?  Maybe it should be the actual abstract?
> 
> <div id="abstract" property="bibo:abstract"><h2>....

The question is how bibo:abstract is defined, ie, whether it expects a literal or an object. I would expect the former. So I tried to find it, looking at:

http://bibotools.googlecode.com/svn/bibo-ontology/trunk/doc/index.html

and the range refers to Literal. So yes, my guess was right, and your latest version is indeed the right one...

So you do have the right instincts, even if you seem to fight with them:-)

Ivan

> 
> I struggle with similar things when trying to annotate Chapters (bibo has BookChapter, for example), references (dcterms has 'reference' but do we annotate the link to the reference, or do we annotate the actual reference in the References section?  And what is a subject and what is an object?  Help?
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 11:10:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT