[XESAM] Ontology sketch. Feedback needed. This time with attachment.

[jamie]

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 [1] (Nepomuk Information Element
> > Ontology). The current draft is available at [2].
> >
> > 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 
> content.

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 
> workarounds).

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)


jamie