RdfOwlVocabulary

Jump to:

Discussion
See also

To create an RDF/OWL vocabulary of the Echo Project's data model, for interoperability with other efforts.

I'm not much of an OWL hooter - and my RDF skills are right down there with creating QuickThread ThreadsML wish lists - but I'd love to meet yah when you get here to SF. [MarcCanter]

<rdf:RDF 
  xmlns     = "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"  
  xmlns:owl = "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"  
  xml:base  = "http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
  xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"  
  xmlns:rdfs= "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"  
  xmlns:dc  = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">

  <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
    <owl:versionInfo>v 0.4 2003-07-09</owl:versionInfo> 
    <dc:title>A Weblog Ontology, codename Echo</dc:title> 
    <dc:identifier>http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/RdfOwlVocabulary </dc:identifier> 
  </owl:Ontology> 

  <!-- entry class -->
  <owl:Class rdf:ID= "entry" >
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">log entry</rdfs:label> 
    
    <rdfs:subClassOf>    
      <owl:Restriction> 
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#author"/> 
      <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> <!--see NumberOfAuthorsDiscussion-->
      </owl:Restriction> 
    </rdfs:subClassOf> 

    <rdfs:subClassOf> 
      <owl:Restriction> 
      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#permanent-link"/>  
      <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> 
      <owl:Restriction> 
    </rdfs:subClassOf> 

    <rdfs:subClassOf> 
      <owl:Restriction>
        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#publication-date"/>  
        <owl:cardinality>1</owl:cardinality> 
      </owl:Restriction>
    </rdfs:subClassOf> 

    <rdfs:subClassOf> 
      <owl:Restriction>
        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasContent"/>  
        <owl:minCardinality>1</owl:minCardinality> 
      </owl:Restriction> 
    </rdfs:subClassOf> 
  </owl:Class> 

  <!-- entry properties --> 
  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="author">  
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#entry"/> 
  </owl:ObjectProperty>

  <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="permanent-link">  
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#entry"/> 
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#anyURI" /> 
  </owl:DatatypeProperty>

  <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID="publication-date">  
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#entry"/> 
  </owl:DatatypeProperty> 

  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasContent"> 
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">content</rdfs:label> 
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#entry"/> 
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#content"/> 
  </owl:ObjectProperty>

    <!-- content class --> 
  <owl:Class rdf:ID="content"> 
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">content item</rdfs:label>
  </owl:Class>
</rdf:RDF>

(Started by [MarkCidade]) [RefactorOk]

Discussion

(copy of the above online at http://dannyayers.com/owltemp.owl)

RDF Validator - valid
OWL Validator - close

Misc questions/responses - refactor ok.

Cardinality 1 for author?

Depends on what the current consensus is
Fair enough.

Where does "contents" come from?

[MarkCi, RfOk] Well, a traditional ontology-ish name would be hasContent. It's a pluralized content property that associates content elements with an entry.
Ok, so outside the explicit Necho structures? I'd perhaps lean towards hasContent(s) to make it a bit of a hint - no big deal though.
[MarkCi, RfOk] After thinking about, I figured that a singlular content would be better, since each instance of the property only refers to one content resource, regardless of how many content instances there are. But since it's an rdf:ID and content already identifies a resource, I figure hasContent will do.

Shouldn't permalink be a Resource?

I figure that it's just a URI. The entry itself is the resource that the URI refers to. [MarkCidade, RefactorOk]
Have to think about this some more. Feels like a loss of semantics to drop it to a literal.

Can the dates be Qualified DC? (or subclasses of?)

Maybe. I guess it depends on what the direction of the canonical XML format is headed towards.
Wait and see then?

We really need to crossref to model/syntax!

It can't be done with normal { { {-delimted codeblocks.
Ick. Of course - I forgot we weren't in html-land. Might have to conjure something extra-Wiki for the purpose.

Do we want to follow the Fecho XML syntax naming system, or use RDF Class (upper-case initial)/property (lower-case initial) style naming?

Discussion

See also