On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 08:02:27PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote:
> I suspect that HTML5 with embedded semantics will end up as the de facto form
> of higher level abstraction.
Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure I understand... Are you suggesting that HTML5 will become usable
as the preferred "abstract" form of representing patterns (instead of, say,
SPARQL, as in Dan's example, or N-Triples), or are you making a deeper
point...? Are you thinking that HTML5 will become so ubiquitous and well-known
that users will likely be able to read it?
Tom
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 05:00:59PM -0400, Tom Baker wrote:
> > eg. 1: AP Use Case - "combining DC, FOAF + SKOS for
> > locating colleague subject interests"
> ...
> > SELECT ?ilabel ?iblurb ?wphp ?name
> >
> > WHERE
> > {
> > [ rdf:type foaf:Agent;
> > foaf:name ?name;
> > foaf:workplaceHomepage ?wphp;
> > foaf:homepage [ dc:subject [ skos:label ?ilabel; skos:scopeNote ] ]
> > ]
> > }
>
> The example above shows a pattern for using four vocabularies to describe
> something for a particular purpose ("locating colleague subject interests").
>
> I'd like to suggest a "lower-level" pattern for consideration. Consider the
> following (non-exhaustive) possible variants:
>
> 1. String value only (using the DC-RDF convention of rdf:value):
>
> :X dcterms:subject :Y
> :Y rdf:value "Textile design--China--History"
>
> 2. String value with Vocabulary Encoding Scheme:
>
> :X dcterms:subject :Y
> :Y rdf:value "Textile design--China--History"
> :Y dcam:memberOf <http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH>
>
> 3. String value with SKOS Concept Scheme:
>
> :X dcterms:subject :Y
> :Y skos:prefLabel "Textile design--China--History"
> :Y skos:inScheme <http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH>
>
> 4. Value URI, alone:
>
> :X dcterms:subject <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85134312>
>
> 5. Value URI with (possibly redundant?) context:
>
> :X dcterms:subject <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85134312>
> <id:sh85134312> skos:inScheme <http://purl.org/dc/terms/LCSH>
>
> Is it clearly "best practice" to use one of these variants? Or are there
> circumstances in which one might favor one over the other?
>
> Would it be useful to move these examples to a higher level of abstraction --
> i.e., express these examples not only as RDF triples, but in XML Schema or
> Schematron? If so, is it useful to have an abstract syntax that is one layer
> removed from RDF -- e.g., that labels the bits of information shown above as
> Property URI, Value URI, VocabularyEncodingScheme URI (or ConceptScheme URI)...
> -- in short, an abstract syntax for DCAM?
>
> Note that this example highlights an aspect of the mapping of DCAM to RDF --
> its use of rdf:value -- which has, through the evolution of best practice, turned
> into Not-Best Practice.
>
> If the potential value of DCAM lies in providing a frame for examples of Best
> Practice, is it more important to get the set of examples right or to get the
> more generalized abstract syntax right? In the case above, there is more than
> one way to do it. Is it perhaps enough to assemble useful examples, starting
> with simple patterns like those above, on up to higher-level patterns like the
> one Dan presents?
>
> Discuss...
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|