Hi Ken, some more comments on the RDF CD now that I looked into it:
I don't feel comfortable with the approach for representing RDF resource URIs as strings. I agree that it may be useful to apply the rdf.resourceset operator to more complex descriptions of RDF resources, and now that I see how it works, I agree that OWL Manchester syntax is a reasonable approach, that my initial Turtle suggestion is nonsense – but then maybe SPARQL might be more appropriate, as it is pure RDF and doesn't require OWL. OTOH it is a little less concise and less elegant than OWL Manchester. But let's talk about URIs of single resources. In the past I have always advocated the approach of treating them as OpenMath symbols, as, in fact, both are identified by URIs. This "just" (and this question is unanswered so far) creates the problem that OpenMath prescribes a rather restricted URI syntax (cdbase/cd#name), whereas RDF allows pretty much any URI. In many practical cases at least RDF hash URIs fit into the OpenMath scheme, but it's not always intuitive to enforce splitting them into OpenMath-style cdbase, cd and name components, and it does not always result in valid names. Consider http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type, which might end up as <OMS cdbase="http://www.w3.org/1999/02"; cd="22-rdf-syntax-ns" name="type"/>. It would be more idiomatic wrt. OpenMath to speak of <OMS cdbase="something" cd="rdf" name="type"/>. In a non-standard extension (implemented as a part of the OMDoc language, which can be considered a superset of OpenMath) I have suggested binding CD names to RDF namespace URIs, i.e. here binding the "CD name" "rdf" to the namespace URI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#. For background see @inproceedings{LK:MathOntoAuthDoc09, author = {Christoph Lange and Michael Kohlhase}, title = {A Mathematical Approach to Ontology Authoring and Documentation}, url = {http://kwarc.info/kohlhase/papers/mkm09-omdoc4onto.pdf}, crossref = {MKM09}, pages = {389--404}, keywords = {conference,clange-phd}, pubs = {clange,mkohlhase,projects/krextor,projects/omdocbiblio,projects/docOnto}} @PROCEEDINGS{MKM09, year = {2009}, month = jul, booktitle = {{MKM/Calculemus} Proceedings}, title = {{MKM/Calculemus} Proceedings}, editor = {Jacques Carette and Lucas Dixon and Sacerdoti Coen, Claudio and Stephen M. Watt}, number = {5625}, series = {LNAI}, keywords = {conference}, isbn = {978-3-642-02613-3}, publisher = {Springer Verlag}} but I wouldn't take the position of recommending this as a best practice for OM in general. If we'd like to unify OpenMath and RDF URIs we need a different approach, and I have no idea what this could be. And another final question is whether (and if so, how) your CD allows for representing complete RDF triples as OM objects – of maybe this is not intended after all. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs University Bremen http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 → SePublica Workshop @ ESWC 2012. Crete, Greece, 27/28 May 2012. Deadline 29 Feb. http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org → I-SEMANTICS 2012. Graz, Austria, 5-7 September 2012 Abstract Deadline 2 April. http://www.i-semantics.at _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
