Ugh, looks like Thunderbird clobbered my last message when I told it to converted html to plain text. This is my reply.
> Okay, I've re-read the metadata specification, specifically the RDF > schema draft section at the bottom of the document, and the RDF schema > for Dublin Core (which was related). > > <bqs:reference rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <dc:subject rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <bqs:subject_type>keyword</bqs:subject_type> > <rdf:value> > <rdf:Bag> > <rdf:li>ventricular myocyte</rdf:li> > <rdf:li>electrophysiological</rdf:li> > </rdf:Bag> > </rdf:value> > </dc:subject> > </bqs:reference> > > This method of defining a keyword uses the straight dublin core subject > while using the bqs:subject_type property to label this instance of > dc:subject property as 'keyword', it is consistent with the standards > defined, but not specifically to the definition of the CellML metadata. > Perhaps those keywords were coded in before keywords were defined, and > nobody raised any issue about the need to convert the old format to the > new format until today. > > If we use the metadata specification it may look like this: > > <bqs:reference rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <bqs:keyword> > <rdf:Seq> > <rdf:li>ventricular myocyte</rdf:li> > <rdf:li>electrophysiological</rdf:li> > </rdf:Seq> > </bqs:keyword> > </bqs:reference> > > Since the specification is already written to accomodate the keywords I > think it is better to keep to it, even though the common usage (as > defined by the number of files with this RDF to describe keywords used > by the old and current repositories) does not follow it. I must admit I > let this issue slipped through my head as I didn't think too much about > it. Thank you for correcting me. > > > However, my inspection of the metadata specification revealed some > issues, such as this: > > <!--Subject Type--> > <rdf:Property rdf:about="&bqsns;subject_type"> > <rdfs:label>subject type</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment> > Defines the topic of a resource. > </rdfs:comment> > <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&dcns;subject" /> > <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&bqsns;" /> > </rdf:Property> > > <!--Subject Type:Keyword--> > <rdf:Property rdf:about="&bqsns;keyword"> > <rdfs:label>keyword</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment> > Defines the topic of a resource using keywords. > </rdfs:comment> > <rdfs:type rdf:resource="&dcns;subject_type" /> > <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&bqsns;" /> > </rdf:Property> > > The specification have subject_type prefixed with both the dublin > core namespace and the bqs namespace. Dublin Core does not define > subject_type, so that needs to be corrected, perhaps the author meant to > use &bqsns;subject_type where s/he wrote &dcns;subject_type. It also > had double escaped ampersand (&bqsns;subject_type should probably > be just &bqsns;subject_type) and other mistakes at other places. I > also think keyword be limited constrained to certain domains (via rdf > schema), such as limiting it to within the bqs:reference class so users > knows specifically where to place it, and machines know where to read it. > > I supposed this topic about formalizing the RDF schema and issues with > the metadata specification should probably be discussed in a different > discussion thread. > > Tommy. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
