- From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:16:18 +0100
- To: "'www-rdf-dspace@w3.org'" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
> Sorry about the formatting, I don't know why Jena isn't abbreviating the > elements, I think it is due to the use of "." in the names. This is > copied > from the CIDOC RDFS schema - Andy is this legal? A limitation of N3 is that dot can't be used in qnames. It would get confused with the path separator syntax in some rule forms. Andy -------- Original Message -------- > From: Butler, Mark <mailto:Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > Date: 16 October 2003 15:57 > > Hi team > > I've been taking a look at some sample CIDOC data but there seem to be > some > mismatches here between the XML data examples and the RDFS schema for > CIDOC. > For example here is an extract of some CIDOC data: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> > <CRMset> > <CRM_Entity>85/1002 Textile lengths > <in_class>E22: Man-Made Object</in_class> > <has_note> > Textile length, batik, silk, Lena Pwerle/Utopia Batik Program, > Ngkwarlerlaneme camp, Utopia, Northern Territory, Australia, 1984-1985 > <has_type> Statement > <in_class>E55: Type</in_class> > </has_type> > </has_note> > </CRM_Entity> > </CRMset> > > It's not clear to me at the moment how to deal with mixed-mode nested > elements. One way of representing this in RDF (written as N3) is > > # Base: file:///C:/jcvs/simile4/simile/corpus/cidoc/cidoc.rdf > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix : <http://www.dspace.org/simile/schemas/cidoc-16oct#> . > > <http://www.dspace.org/simile/metadata/cidoc/85/1002_Textile_lengths> > a > <http://www.dspace.org/simile/schemas/cidoc-16oct#E22.Man-Made > Object> ; > <http://www.dspace.org/simile/schemas/cidoc-16oct#P3F.has_note> > [ > > > <http://www.dspace.org/simile/schemas/cidoc-16oct#E55.Type> "Statement" > ; :text "Textile length, batik, silk, Lena Pwerle/Utopia > Batik Program, Ngkwarlerlaneme camp, Utopia, Northern Territory, > Australia, 1984-1985" > ] ; > > Sorry about the formatting, I don't know why Jena isn't abbreviating the > elements, I think it is due to the use of "." in the names. This is > copied > from the CIDOC RDFS schema - Andy is this legal? > > However one reason the representation above may not be correct is in the > CIDOC RDFS schema it says that cidoc:P3F.has_note has range > cidoc:E1.CRM_Entity and domain rdf:Literal. This means that using a > bNode in > order to tie the cidoc:E55.Type and the literal value together as I've > done > above wasn't what was intended - any ideas or comments? > > thanks in advance > > 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 Thursday, 16 October 2003 11:18:04 UTC