[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Groups - MetaData-Examples_07-06-21(MetaData-Examples_07-06-21.odt) uploaded
Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > On 6/22/07, Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@sun.com> wrote: > >> Agree that we should be as precise as possible, on the other hand we >> should be as well consistent with our vocabulary. >> Just to be sure, is for you the term "resource description" similar to >> the RDF object and "resource property" the RDF property (predicate)? > > The RDF *subject*; the thing. Like objects vs. attributes. Here you are confusing me. You introduced a new term "attribute", is it a W3C RDF vocabulary. I found "attribute" mentioned in http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/ "RDF properties may be thought of as attributes of resources and in this sense correspond to traditional attribute-value pairs. RDF properties also represent relationships between resources." The value is still the RDF object, see also http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-data-model > >> > Third, as I mentioned before, I think this nested RDF/XML obscures >> > what's going on with the graph, and should be: >> Bruce, you must admit it is only human taste to nest it or use an IRI >> placeholder. One way or the other no parser will be obfuscated by this. > > Yes, but this document is not for tools; it's for humans. I am human and see no obfuscation. ;-) Bruce, all I want to say, it's a matter of personal taste and habit but we can change this, as it seems important for you as both ways are valid. > >> > <med:Patient rdf:about="http://ex-hospital-DB/patients/ID98765"> >> > <ex:hasID rdf:resource="ID98765"/> >> > <ex:hasVitals >> rdf:resource="http://hospital-DB/medical-note-cc1593"/> >> > </med:Patient> >> > >> > <med:VitalData rdf:about="http://hospital-DB/medical-note-cc1593"> >> > <rdf:type >> > >> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/package#Element"/> >> >> > >> > </med:VitalData> >> > >> > Finally, surely the rdf:type statement there is wrong, or at least >> > unnecessary? >> Some problem, as mentioned above. The med:VitalData is as in content >> data by default of type xs:string and therefore not of type odf:Element. > > No; an rdf:type is not a rdf:datatype! Now I'm confused what you're > trying to do with this example. Please do not interpret too much into it. The rdf:type was part of the copy/paste problem. And I also agree xs:string would be the rdf:datatype not the rdf:type. Thanks for clarifying this and sorry for the confusion. Svante
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]