Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen pisze: > > * contributor (DC) > * creator (DC) > * description (DC) > * language (DC) > * publisher (DC) > * subject (DC) > * title (DC) > * license (an extensible vocabulary with predefined values GPL, LPGL, > MIT etc) > * uri > * category (a controled vocabulary that maps to the cats in the > extended onto)
This particular one may be tricky. This "controlled" vocabulary should be extensible. I think it's not a good idea to have to agree on all categories at the very beginning. I would rather go for the notion of type. A resource may be a file, email whatever. This field would point at a type of a resource. (In NIE it would be expressed with rdf:type pointing to an URI of a class (like Document, File or whatever), in the simplified XESAM "language" it could point at some type identifier). The question if you want to have a simple list of types, or an inheritance tree of types remains open. > * mime > * creationDate > * modificationDate > > > With this simple onto you can actually do quite a bit of nifty stuff. > With this in place it might also be easier to agree on extended ontology > as Antoni already suggested. > I'm all for. With this set (or something similar) it should be possible to agree on a 1 to 1 mapping between NIE-core and XESAM-core. The properties from the extended part of the ontology could be mapped via the subproperty relations to the ones from core (as much as possible). A simple mechanism could realise the basic inference rule. IF a prop b AND prop subPropertyOf prop2 THEN a prop2 b This shouldn't be too difficult and time-consuming, even in systems where performance is a priority. Antoni Mylka [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
