W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2004

RE: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:52:05 -0700
To: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOCEEHEPAA.howardk@fatdog.com>

> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Libby Miller
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:47 AM
> To: Howard Katz
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?

	[snip ...]

So if I understand, you've inverted the relationship: instead of a bib
containing books, you now have book as the primary object (in a non-RDF
sense), and its url predicate now points at its bib container. Is that the
intention? if so, url seems rather generic for such a usage. Wouldn't
something like bib or owner or container be more meaningful??

Howard

> hm, looking at it again, if it was me, I'd do something like this:
>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:bibterm="http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/"
>           xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/"
>           xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
>           xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
>
>          <bibterm:Book><!--now a class -->
>                   <bibterm:url
> rdf:resource="http://www.book-stuff.com/bib"/>
> <!-- I'm not sure what this url refers to -->
>                  <bibterm:year>1994</bibterm:year>
>                  <dc:title>TCP/IP Illustrated</dc:title>
>                  <bibterm:author>
>                      <foaf:Person><!--just a suggestion :) -->
>                          <bibterm:last>Stevens</bibterm:last>
>                          <bibterm:first>W.</bibterm:first>
>                      </foaf:Person>
>                  </bibterm:author>
>          </bibterm:Book>
>   </rdf:RDF>
>
> so now I've assumed the book itself is not the same as its url, but
> that it has an associated url (e.g like a foaf:homepage) - the url is
> not necessary by the way. I've made the book a typed node (which fits
> better with your xml I think), and there's no need for the 'book'
> predicate indirection from your first example.
>
> I hope that makes sense!
>
> Libby
>
>
> > Here's an N-Triples view of the same information:
> >
> > <http://www.book-stuff.com/bib> <http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/book>
> > _:jARP438894 .
> > _:jARP438894 <http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/year> "1994" .
> > _:jARP438894 <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/title> "TCP/IP
> Illustrated" .
> > _:jARP438894 <http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/author>  _:jARP438895 .
> > _:jARP438895 <http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/last> "Stevens" .
> > _:jARP438895 <http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/first> "W." .
> >
> > My basic question, given that I'm still fairly new to RDF, is: does this
> > look like reasonably valid RDF to people, valid in the sense of
> not seeming
> > too odd or unusual in some way, as well as being true to the
> intent of the
> > original data? I basically want to make sure I'm not producing
> RDF that's at
> > odds with what's considered good practise.
> >
> > TIA for any thoughts,
> > Howard
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 16:50:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT