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

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/5/31, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
>
> On Thursday 31 May 2007 17:27:46 jamie wrote:
> > 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
>
> Not so sure about it.
>
> > > 3) RDF object is always literal. Can't directly reference
> resources.(has
> > > workarounds).
> >
> > what are the workarounds?
>
> The workaround is to specify an URI as a literal and hope software
> understands
> this in cases like linking archive contents.
>
> > vCard basically needs structs (non literal resources) for things like 1
> > or more contact addresses (struct of phone, email , fax etc)
>
> If we go for structs, we get an equivalent of a full-blown RDF(s) minus
> multiinheritance.


I can eassily see where structs would make lots of sense, but I think we
should leave them out for simplicity reasons. OTOH if everybody and their
grandma can write an indexer that supports structs then I'm fine, I just
don't think this is the case...

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070531/a64f8057/attachment.htm