here is vocab for talking about statements and other things

I know, I just won't let this thing rest.  But, the thing I like about RDF is 
that if there's something you can't say, you can always just make a 
vocabulary so you CAN say it.  No?

Here is my new nifty vocabulary for talking about statements and other things 
identified within URIs.  Its a first stab, help/comments welcome.  At least 
it validates..

http://abra.info/2008/abra-discuss#

My goal is to make it easy/valid/possible to say

	:whatEricSaid  abra:corroborates  :whatJoeSaid

by a sequence like this  (and correct my N3 please!)

	:whatEricSaid a abra:AddressableStatement
	:whatEricSaid abra:identifiedBy http://example.com/rodeo.html#id1

	(similar for whatJoeSaid)

Then I can also go back to my old Desert Museum example, and say something 
like

	:DesertMuseum	a abra:AddressableThing
	:DesertMuseum abra:identifiedBy  http://desertmuseum.org/
	:DesertMuseum abra:identifedAs  "organization "  <!-- todo here structured 
types -->

	:ShadeGrownCoffeeSupportsEcologicalDiversity a abra:AddressableThing
	:sgc = :ShadeGrownCoffeeSupportsEcologicalDiversity
	:sgc abra:identifedBy "Win-Win Ecology by Mike Rosenzweig, p XX-XX"  <!-- old 
fashioned book reference - do we already have vocab for those?-->
	:sgc abra:identifedAs "concept"

	:DesertMuseum abra:implements :sgc   

And hey, if you don't like it, you can say

	:you  tld:respondsNegativelyTo  :goldasidea  

once you identify it by the url, or piece thereof ;-)  (though usually you'd 
make a post and not just put yourself as the subject)

This vocab is not much use to formal reasoners.  But, I think I can still use 
it, and make my own parsers if I find a reason to.  Right now I just want a 
way to compactly express these kinds of things in a clearly defined way.  
Will worry about analyzing them and drawing conclusions later.

It seems to me that the water was getting muddled in our discussion between 
the language of RDF and the current crop of applications that can do useful 
things with it.  Or at least that's how I read it.

Anyway any and all comments/suggestions welcome!  Thanks! 

--Golda

ps This is the first time I've tried creating a vocabulary, and I'm not part 
of a group that does that sort of thing, so its likely there are bugs that 
the validator did not complain about...

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 09:41:15 UTC