On Friday 18 May 2007 09:48:29 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > 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...
If the #1 you can replace a with :a, :is_a or whatever else you like. It doesn't matter since it doesn't use RDFS. In the second one you are stuck either with a,rdf:type, some prefix:type. It maybe possible to change the name completely, though I'd better check first if this is a good idea. .Desktop too has superfluous characters like = or ] :) > 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? My idea was that we define a base for all URIs with @base. So we can use simple URIs like string, type or whatever. However after carefully looking at the formal grammar, I discovered, that you either have specify a prefix(even an empty one like ":") or have to enclose the URI in <> brackets, so I chose the empty prefix. If course it's possible to deviate form the spec, but it doesn't help the interoperability. As to the differences between #1 and #2. #2 is a valid RDFS: Viz tools understand it. Ontology introspection/mapping is possible because RDFS is what is used to describe ontologies. Other software will consider these files an ontology definition as is. #1 is a valid RDF: Viz tools work just fine. Ontology mapping is still possible, however software must be provided with a proper xesam-rdfs mapping data to consider these files an ontology, and not just a RDF data set. --Evgeny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
