- From: Aaron Straup Cope <asc@vineyard.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hello everyone, My name is Aaron and a while back I wrote myself an XML application for describing recipes, meal courses and menus: http://www.eatrinkfeelgood.org The DTD is not, as far as I know, RDF-friendly though I have been considering making it so. To be frank, I have doubts about the actual viability of RDF outside of a limited set of applications. But I can imagine my recipe DTD might be one of them so I'd like to spend a little more time investigating what changes are necessary to make my thingy play nicely with all the other RDF thingies. I have two basic questions. One is straightforward, the other not so much. 1) I read once that the RDF/XML spec would not allow for the use of XInclude data. Is this true? Has it been corrected? 2) This question essentially boils down to: where does the data stop and the meta-data begin? I have included (below) snippets from a conversation I had with Karl Dubost on the subject which goes on to ask some basic technical questions about one actually uses RDF. Any input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, --- Anyway, humour me and tell me which part of the following is data and which part is meta-data: <ing> <amount> <quantity><n type = "int" value = "1" /></quantity> <measure> <unit content = "teaspoon" /> </measure> </amount> <item>vanilla extract</item> </ing> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Karl Dubost wrote: > If you look at it for the cooking aspect and only in this abstract. > > + type of ingredient is an interesting data > in this case the type of ingredient has for value "Vanilla" > > Because for example I want a meal tonight with the flavour of Vanilla. But the flavour of vanilla isn't vanilla extract, nor is vanilla extract vanilla. And it's unclear why I should include that kind of meta-data in a recipe. This presumably is where we start getting into the high weirdness surrounding RDF classes? I can imagine how to express this using an OOP (perl) model but I have no idea how you're supposed to do it in RDF and what you're actually supposed to include in the data-file itself... package Vanilla; sub taste { "smooth"; } sub form { "solid" } package Vanilla::Extract; use base qw (Vanilla); sub form { "liquid" } ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:17:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Straup Cope <asc@vineyard.net> To: Karl Dubost Subject: Re: FYI: RDF and resto On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Aaron Straup Cope wrote: > I can imagine how to express this using an OOP (perl) model but I have no > idea how you're supposed to do it in RDF and what you're actually supposed > to include in the data-file itself... I gather it would be something like this... <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Food"> <rdfs:comment>Generic Food Class</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource= "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Resource"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Vanilla"> <rdfs:comment>Vanilla Class</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Food"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Vanilla_extract"> <rdfs:comment>Vanilla extract Class</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Vanilla"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="form"> <rdfs:comment>The physical characteristics of a food item</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Food"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description ID="solid"> <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#form"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description ID="liquid"> <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#form"/> </rdf:Description> ...but it's unclear how I would write (in rdf-friendly XML) : <item>vanilla extract</item> or even : the <form> of <vanilla extract> is <liquid> or whether 'solid' and 'liquid' should be classes or descriptions and whether one has any impact on multiple inheritance (multiple instances of 'subClassOf') Never mind how much other verbiage I would need to define this particular liquid as being "wet"; it is arguable that mercury isn't exactly wet despite it's liquidity. [ed: not to mention financial liquidity]
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 08:22:45 UTC