I'm new to RDF. There has been a lot of discussions in the OpenDocument TC about meta data in OpenDocument. I'd like to highlight my understandings from the discussion:
- Stefano Mazzochi wrote (forwarded by Bruce D'Arcus)
"NOTE: I'm not suggesting that, all I'm saying is: choose your battles. A syntax battle is not worth fighting. A model battle is not worth fighting either. The unique identification of symbols is the only one worth fighting for."
I love this statement and I totally agree with it.
-
Restricted RDF/RDFX/XMP/Contrained RDF
Restricted RDF/RDFX/XMP/Contrained RDF looks like a syntax/model battle for me. My understanding is, as long as we provide/specify a way to generated/derive triples from the OpenDocument all will be fine. With interest I read the GRDDL approach for a way to specify how to derive triples from OpenDocuments.
-
XMP
I'd like to have a clarification about the following statement about XMP(posted by Duane Nickull):
"XMP does not "wrap around" RDF. XMP is expressed in a small subset of RDF. All valid XMP can be expressed in RDF. There is a lot of RDF that is not valid XMP."
Does RDF in that case stand for RDF/triples or RDF/XML representation? Can every set of RDF/triples be expressed in XMP?
-
unique identification of symbols/Making Statements about parts of the Content
Very interesting. Current OpenDocument meta data allows to make statements about the current document, e.g. ("", dc:title, "Sample Document") or ("", dc:author, "Mr. X") using
<office:meta><dc:title>Sample Document</dc:title><dc:author>Mr. X</dc:author></office:meta>and an appropriate mapping. Other interesting subjects may be parts of the document resp. content. This would require a URI naming convention for parts of the documents, i.e. there must be a way to uniquely reference a part of the document/content. -
Generic RDF store
In order to store RDF statements about various subjects (i.e. generic RDF triples) in OpenDocument you need to have a place and a way of how to store generic RDF statements. E.g. in the bibliographic project run by Bruce D'Arcus, a RDF store would be very helpful in order to store bibliographic information.
Here the syntax/model question seems to be a great deal. More direct, the question of a generic RDF/XML section, a restricted RDF/XML section, a XMP section or an application (e.g. bibliographic) specification XML slang plus an appropriate mapping arises.
I'd like to get feedback,
Florian
( Okt 04 2005, 06:31:22 AM PDT ) Permalink Kommentare [2]
I dunno, looking around tells me that syntax matters.
I posted my experiments with what I have in mind here. Basically, I think it makes sense to allow constrained RDF because it provides a predictable way to add extensible metadata (important to use at the bibliographic project), while also being amenable to XML processing.
XMP is an RDF subset, and has no support for things like XML literals (parseType="Literal"). It also uses rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag, and enforces awkward restrictions like requiring rdf:RDF and rdf:Description.
A generic RDF store (in OOo; right?): this is a separate topic, I suppose, but I do like this idea. There are excellent open source toolkits like Redland that can use standard SQL databases like SQLite and MySQL for storage. I'd much rather spend my time figuring out a good RDF representation of bib metadata (just had a conference call about this a little while ago), than worrying that I must map it to relational db tables and such.
Finally, Adobe: if you want to promote XMP, I think you need to rethink the subset you support in consultation with RDF experts, and you need to get serious about opening up the SDK to other languages. Redland, for example, has bindings for Perl, Python, Ruby, Java, C#.
Gesendet von Bruce D'Arcus am Oktober 04, 2005 at 08:43 AM PDT #
Gesendet von Eduardo am Oktober 18, 2005 at 05:18 PM PDT #