UBL Naming Conventions & RDF

I am developing an ontology for legal documents that is based fairly
extensively on Word Net and also previous work that I did for the Data
Consortium. The ontology seeks to be directly compatible with the Dublin
Core, with the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and
with the UBL Naming Conventions -- it is this last objective that brings me
to write this group.

The problem I am confronting is that the RDF normally defines predicates
such as "hasParent", a construct that conflics with UBL Naming Conventions
which state that "[GNR7] UBL XML element, attribute and type names MUST be
in singular form unless the concept itself is plural".

Clearly, UBL naming rules require every XML element to be a noun, qualified
or not. In UBL there is no allowance for predicates like "hasParent". It is
therefore difficult to reconcile UBL naming conventions with those in
OWL-based ontologies. I think that if UBL could be stated using RDF, then
finally the two communities could productively come together.

So, my task has been to "take apart" the RDF's predicate construct,
distinguishing between predicate verbs and predicate nouns. A predicate verb
is simply <has> while a predicate noun is (or could be) <Parent>. So rather
than <Person><hasParent rdf:resource='uri'/></Person>, I am suggesting that
the pattern <Person><has><Parent rdf:about='uri'/></has></Person> be used
instead. Many advantages are apparent from this approach, while there
appears to be few or no disadvantages.

Here's my question: is this the correct group with whom I should engage on
this question? Any references to relevant discussions in the past about this
would be appreciated -- I haven't found any in the archives when I search
for "Direct Object", "Predicate Noun", "UBL" or other related keywords.

John McClure

Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 02:18:06 UTC