[XESAM] Ontology sketch. Feedback needed. This time with attachment.
jamiemcc at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu May 31 07:27:46 PDT 2007
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:50 +0300, Evgeny Egorochkin wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2007 12:50:24 Antoni Mylka wrote:
> > Hello phreedom,
> > For those of you who don't know me I'm currently working on a desktop
> > ontology for the Nepomuk project  (Nepomuk Information Element
> > Ontology). The current draft is available at .
> > Overall. Mikkel Kamstrup has already noticed, that the notation used is
> > not typical. The "Classes" are not actualy RDFS classes but "property
> > categories". Otherwise the distinction you made between a File and
> > Content means that these are two separate entities. Could you elaborate
> > a bit more?
> This is a result of the limitation that only one resource can be used to
> describe a file. There are 2 major class trees: content and source. They for
> now are subclasses of DataObject, but this may be changed e.g. in favor of
> DC. Each file gets assigned one content and one source class. There are no
> conflicting deviations from RDFS, just a subset. It might be more appropriate
> to rename Source branch to SourcedFromXXX, but I don't think it's appropriate
> here and/or will be accepted.
> Current limitations:
> 1) One resource per file or its equivalent like message attachment or archive
shuold be ok
> 2) no multi-inheritance for classes/properties
should be ok
> 3) RDF object is always literal. Can't directly reference resources.(has
what are the workarounds?
vCard basically needs structs (non literal resources) for things like 1
or more contact addresses (struct of phone, email , fax etc)
More information about the xdg