Re: How should I "link" a predicate?

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> <snip>
> On 19 Aug 2010, at 16:30, Paul Houle wrote:
>
>> � � �I'm planning to define a few predicates because I think existing predicates don't exactly express what I'm trying to say.
>>
>> � � �Since a predicate is a URI, �there's the question of "What should be served up at the the URI if somebody (a) types it into the browser, �or (b) looks at it with a semweb client?"
>>
>> � � �What's the best thing to do here. �It might be lame, �but I'm thinking about making the predicate URL do a 301 redirect to a CMS page that has a human-readable description of the predicate.
>>
>> � � �I suppose that a predicate URL page could also have some RDF assertions on it about the predicate, �for instance, �a collection of OWL assertions about it could be useful... �However, �beyond that, �I don't think the state of the art in upper ontologies is good enough that we can really make a machine readable definition of what a predicate means at this time.
>>
>> � � For the predicate that I need most immediately, �there's the issue that there are optional OWL statements that could be asserted about it that would provide an interpretation that some people would accept some of the time -- however, �I wouldn't be coining this predicate if I thought this interpretation was 100% correct. �In this case, �I think the best I can do is make a human-readable assertion that
>>
>> "You could put this assertion about my predicate in your OWL engine if you wish"
>>
>> � � and leave it at that.
>>
>> � � Any thoughts?
>
> There are some best practises to writing and and publishing RDF vocabs. You can find them on the W3C site :
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
>
> I would have a look at how FOAF or some other similar project generate human-readable documentation for their RDF vocabs, I think there is some tool which does it, but I can't recall its name off the top of my head.
>
> Mischa
>
>
>

Hi Paul,

If you only have a few properties to define, you might look at
http://open.vocab.org/ which handles this all quite nicely for you.

For example, I've abused the Music Ontology modeling in the past by
creating my own term to specify the composer associated with a
classical music recording

http://open.vocab.org/docs/composer

(which de-refs to a nice html page in browser or an rdf description w/
appropriate headers all thnx to open.vocab)

-Kurt J

Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 22:33:54 UTC