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 11:21:03 -0700
To: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOOEEIEPAA.howardk@fatdog.com>

No problem. Your comments are very useful. Whether by mistake or otherwise,
I can see a value in having books as standalone resources, with predicate
pointers to bib owners. As Thomas enjoys pointing out, it's fun modelling
this stuff.
Howard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Libby Miller
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:02 AM
> To: Howard Katz
> Cc: Libby Miller; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Generated RDF conformant with good practise?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Howard Katz wrote:
>
> >> 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
>
> ah, I misunderstood what a bib was, sorry, serves me right for rushing
> it. It might clarify things to have typed Bib and Book objects perhaps.
>
> Libby
>
> > 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 18:19:43 GMT

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