On today's call, I suggested that we aim at devising some sort of readable
shorthand for expressing examples and recalled that Karen had improvised a
shorthand for the Guidelines for Application Profiles [1]:
Description template: Person id=person
minimum = 0; maximum = unlimited
Statement template: givenName
Property: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenname
minimum = 0; maximum = 1
Type of Value = "literal"
Statement template: familyName
Property: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/family_name
minimum = 0; maximum = 1
Type of Value = "literal"
Statement template: email
Property: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
minimum = 0; maximum = unlimited
Type of Value = "non-literal"
value URI = mandatory
I like this because it captures key information in a readable form,
using indentation "semantically" (like Python). No angle or curly
brackets get in the way.
When I say "improvise a simple syntax for abstracting out the pattern in
question", I have this sort of shorthand in mind. When we say we will "work
on" the examples, what I picture is that we would try to express them in such a
style. It wouldn't matter, initially, if we try to standardize the details for
doing so. The point would be to follow a few simple guidelines (e.g., "use
indentation to show nesting"), and try to make up a readable language to
describe a particular pattern in an abstract way. The parts of those
descriptions that, we find, cannot be expressed in RDF -- that would be where
DCAM starts.
Tom
[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/profile-guidelines/
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|