2007/5/17, Evgeny Egorochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Just realized that I KISSed examples too much and didn't notice a mistake. Need to sleep more :( and stop talking to myself... Anyway, resource has to have a prefix: or has to be included in <> brackets. Also, I changed field naming to xesam:Audio.composer. This seems to be better due to Jamie's wish to explicitly link DC and other external ontologies. I don't object this either. These two examples now look like this: ========= #1 ====================== ===================================== @prefix DC: <http://freedesktop.org/standards/DC#> @prefix xesam: <http://freedesktop.org/standards/xesam#> @prefix : < http://freedesktop.org/standards/xesam_base#> xesam:Audio.Composer a :field; :of_type :string; :has_parent DC:Creator; :name "Composer"@EN; :name "Композитор"@RU; :description "Audio composer". ===================================== ========= #2 ======================= You can map rdf:Property to something other like file:Property not sure which is better. Any ideas for the prefix since xesam: is now used? I still strongly advise to use #2 an not #1. ===================================== @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>. @prefix DC: <http://freedesktop.org/standards/DC#> @prefix type: <http://freedesktop.org/standards/xesam_base#> @prefix xesam: <http://freedesktop.org/standards/xesam#> @prefix : <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> xesam:Audio.Composer a rdf:Property; :range type:string; :subPropertyOf DC:Creator; :label "Composer"@EN; :label "Композитор"@RU; :comment "Audio composer". ===================================== Will re-check this when I wake up once more :) Sorry for confusion.
Thanks the examples. I think it looks unintuitive that the "a" entry does not have a :-prefix while the others don't. Also this format clearly contain superfluous characters, like the leading :'s and trailing ;'s. If you write a .desktop file it is pretty hard getting syntax errors... I liked the first example in your first mail the best, but I'm a bit confused now... Was it valid or invalid? - And why did your prefer the one with redundant characters? Cheers, Mikkel
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
