- 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