- From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:16:09 +0100
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 02:19:15PM +0100, Mark van Assem wrote: > (b) the outcome should be that the thesaurus owners have an intuitive > feeling of (1) how an RDF version would look like and (2) where to get > more info on how to do conversion in more detail. > > If that's the case, I think this version satisfies a2 and b1, but some > more material is needed for b2. For example, it would probably be > helpful for them to know what technology one can use to convert an XML > version of a thesaurus to an RDF version (e.g. XSLT). Is a separate > section on "Conversion" something to consider? Or a reference to another > (to be created) document? Mark, Hmm, it feels to me that the notion of converting between XML and RDF automatically opens a can of worms. For starters, what is an "XML version of a thesaurus"? Such a document could presumably take on any number of forms since the document models expressible in XML are theoretically quite diverse. Since your posting, Pete Johnston has published a draft explanation for why XML elements cannot necessarily be used as RDF properties [1], summarizing a discussion that has recently come to a head on the dc-architecture list. My gut feeling is that conversion is something that could be entrusted to algorithms only if the source XML and the model expressed thereby already followed well-defined modeling conventions. That seems like a risky assumption. Tom [1] http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-elem-prop/ -- Dr. Thomas Baker Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352 Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 13:13:22 UTC