W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

Re: ACTION-363 - XRD correspondence with RDF

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:19:30 -0500
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <125552B1-C6DD-4B62-AC2D-A7665EA5972C@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On 2009-12 -17, at 12:45, Toby Inkster wrote:

> I was skimming the TAG minutes just now and noticed that TAG was  
> looking
> at this.
>
> I recently implemented an XRD parser in Perl that parses XRD into an  
> RDF
> model (which can then, say, be queried with SPARQL or serialised as
> N-Triples).
>
> http://search.cpan.org/dist/XRD-Parser/

Nice.  I don't really like the reification, though.
Better to translate the XRD to RDF which means the same.
What about converting it to the POWDER-S ontology for the link URI  
patterns and suchlike?
POWER is (a W3C Rec) designed for this case.
I haven't looked at how well they map but the use cases are more or  
less teh same and they have ways of saying what the.


> Most of XRD has an obvious mapping to RDF. Things that don't are:
>
> 1. <Alias> - I mapped this to a predicate:
> <http://ontologi.es/xrd#alias>. owl:sameAs seems too strong an  
> assertion
> going by how I've seen it used in the wild.
>
> 2. Link templates - these I've mapped to a literal datatype. However,
> because they're literals, they can't be used as RDF subjects in
> subsequent statements, which means that if their media type, title,  
> etc
> are in the XRD, that information is lost from the RDF. A bnode mapping
> might be a possibility.


>
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 15:16:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT