RE: Mapping between schemas

> so there seems to be confusion between the

Well - there is confusion in unfinished sentences!

I meant:

.. so there seems to be confusion in what the terms refer to.

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Seaborne, Andy <mailto:Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Date: 8 October 2003 11:51
> 
> I don't think there is a uniform approach because the original specs
> aren't 
> uniform in use of a "qualifier".
> 
> Looking at vra3:title:
> 
> vra3:Title.Variant
>     could be subProperty of title
>     its still a title for the work
> vra3:Title.Translation
>     could be subProperty of title
>     its still a title for the work
> 
> but
> 
> vra3:Title.Series
>    Not a subproperty
>    Would seem preferrable to link to the "series" description
> vra3:Title.LargerEntity
>    Not a subproperty - this isn't a title for the work
> 
> In Dublin Core there is explicit subProperties:
> 
> dc:created     subPropertyOf  dc:date
> dc:references  subPropertyOf  dc:relation
> dc:medium      subPropertyOf  dc:format
> 
> and if the subProperty is a true statement so is the same pair related
> by 
> the superProperty.
> 
> The var3 mappings to DC also need thinking about
> 
> vra3:measurements is defined to map to dc:format
>   measurements.{dimensions,format,resolution}
> is about the image (actually about the work or about the image)
> 
> vra3:material is defined to dc:format but is about the substance of the
> work.
> 
> so there seems to be confusion between the
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Butler, Mark [mailto:Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 7 October 2003 17:40
> To: www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
> Subject: Mapping between schemas
> 
> 
> 
> Hi team,
> 
> After writing an XSLT transform to turn the Artstor XML into RDF/XML, I
> decided to have a go at writing an RDFS schema for the resulting RDF. I
> then 
> decided to try to link this schema to an earlier one I had done for VRA
> Core, because the Artstor metadata is based on VRA Core.
> 
> There are a number of problems doing this, but I came across one which I
> want to mention here because I suspect it may be potentially very
> generic. 
> It is the problem where one schema uses properties whereas another
> schema 
> uses classes.
> 
> For example, consider two schemas that both use the VRA element creator
> that 
> refers to an image record. Note I am not using RDFS class / property
> terminology here deliberately, because specifications like VRA Core do
> not 
> use such terms. Creator has a number of qualifiers, e.g. Creator.Role,
> Creator.Attribution, Creator.Personal_name, Creator.Corporate_name. So
> how 
> do we represent this? Well there are two approaches:
> 
> (a) We can create a property called creator, and then subproperties
> called 
> role, attribution, personal_name and corporate_name. If we do this, we
> are 
> making the assumption that an image has exactly one creator.
> 
> (b) Alternatively we can create a class called Creator. Now our Image
> instance has one or more properties called hasCreator, each of which
> points 
> to an instance of Creator. The properties roles, attribution,
> personal_name 
> and corporate_name all have domain Creator. Now images can have multiple
> creators, because each creator is an independent object, rather than a
> property value.
> 
> Now lets consider the mapping:
> 
> 1. It's fairly straightforward to map a:role, a:attribution,
> a:personal_name 
> and a:corporate_name onto their respective counterparts in b.
> 
> 2. Mapping b on to a is may be more difficult, if an image does have
> multiple creators.
> 
> 3. Mapping between creator is difficult, because it is a property in a
> and a 
> class in b.
> 
> any thoughts?
> 
> Dr Mark H. Butler
> Research Scientist                HP Labs Bristol
> mark-h_butler@hp.com
> Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 06:58:06 UTC