Re: Proposal: The "POI as a simple collection of links" data model

Hey Dan,

I'm willing to have a crack at mapping this out.  
But any input you can provide would be really helpful 8)

Here's an abstract attempt at a very high level.  
Are these the sort of relationships you meant?

        <pois> <contain> <poi>
        <pois> <crs> <wgs84-3d>
        <pois> <metadata key> <default content>
        <pois> <default script> <src uri>
        <pois> <default style> <src uri>
        
        <poi> <location> <geo uri> or <poi> <location> <uri> or <poi> <location> <gml point>
        <poi> <alternate> <uri> <- what's the best way to model attributes?
        <poi> <metadata keywords> <content>
        <poi> <dc:title> <value>
        <poi> <dc:publisher> <value>
        <poi> <script> <src uri>
        <poi> <style> <src uri>
        <poi> <change to state> <date/time>
        <poi> <gr:has opening hours specification> <gr:opening hours specification>


So as you hinted at:

        <poi> <<link type>> <<value>> <- set a value
        <poi> <<link type>> <<href>>  <- relate to another http accessible thing


Obviously these need to use valid URIs...and to use correct notation.
But I just wanted to check I was modelling the right aspects first.

Does this type of model guarantee a <poi> or <pois> could then be
injected into any rdf/xml entity representation (or any other
notation/serialisation) just like foaf and dublic core metadata, etc.
can too?  And likewise any foaf or dublin core metadata can be packed
into <pois> and <poi> too?

Being able to store them all in existing triple stores sounds like a
great advantage too...

NOTE: See my question above

        "what's the best way to model attributes?"

Either at the predicate or object level.  Or are you just meant to
define a triple for each where the predicate is the attribute?



roBman



On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 16:01 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 15:56, Raj Singh <rsingh@opengeospatial.org> wrote:
> > I love the "POI as a simple collection of links" data model in theory. It's very clean conceptually, and that's the way I've been thinking of the larger POI "picture" also. However, I don't think it's the best way to implement.
> >
> > I think we still need a few primitives. The only things that are in the model now that don't fit your links model are the label, some time fields, and the location. The label and the time fields are so natural to just stick in there. That brings us to location. The data URI seems awkward to me and likely to turn people off of the spec. However, I'm open to other opinions.
> 
> I like it too. Seems pretty much isomorphic to RDF, btw. Can it be
> written out explicitly as a set of triples, eg. an unordered
> collection of factoids that take one of these forms:
> 
> <thing1-URI> <propertytype-URI> "value " .
> 
> and
> 
> 
> <thing1-URI> <propertytype-URI> <thing2-URI>.
> 
> ...?
> 
> If so, it should be possible to write out this datamodel using any RDF
> notation, store/query it in any RDF database, etc.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 16:59:01 UTC