- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:19:30 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <125552B1-C6DD-4B62-AC2D-A7665EA5972C@w3.org>
On 2009-12 -17, at 12:45, Toby Inkster wrote: > I was skimming the TAG minutes just now and noticed that TAG was > looking > at this. > > I recently implemented an XRD parser in Perl that parses XRD into an > RDF > model (which can then, say, be queried with SPARQL or serialised as > N-Triples). > > http://search.cpan.org/dist/XRD-Parser/ Nice. I don't really like the reification, though. Better to translate the XRD to RDF which means the same. What about converting it to the POWDER-S ontology for the link URI patterns and suchlike? POWER is (a W3C Rec) designed for this case. I haven't looked at how well they map but the use cases are more or less teh same and they have ways of saying what the. > Most of XRD has an obvious mapping to RDF. Things that don't are: > > 1. <Alias> - I mapped this to a predicate: > <http://ontologi.es/xrd#alias>. owl:sameAs seems too strong an > assertion > going by how I've seen it used in the wild. > > 2. Link templates - these I've mapped to a literal datatype. However, > because they're literals, they can't be used as RDF subjects in > subsequent statements, which means that if their media type, title, > etc > are in the XRD, that information is lost from the RDF. A bnode mapping > might be a possibility. > > >
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 15:16:36 UTC