Hi Paul, <snip> On 19 Aug 2010, at 16:30, Paul Houle wrote:
> I'm planning to define a few predicates because I think existing > predicates don't exactly express what I'm trying to say. > > Since a predicate is a URI, there's the question of "What should be > served up at the the URI if somebody (a) types it into the browser, or (b) > looks at it with a semweb client?" > > What's the best thing to do here. It might be lame, but I'm thinking > about making the predicate URL do a 301 redirect to a CMS page that has a > human-readable description of the predicate. > > I suppose that a predicate URL page could also have some RDF assertions > on it about the predicate, for instance, a collection of OWL assertions > about it could be useful... However, beyond that, I don't think the state > of the art in upper ontologies is good enough that we can really make a > machine readable definition of what a predicate means at this time. > > For the predicate that I need most immediately, there's the issue that > there are optional OWL statements that could be asserted about it that would > provide an interpretation that some people would accept some of the time -- > however, I wouldn't be coining this predicate if I thought this > interpretation was 100% correct. In this case, I think the best I can do is > make a human-readable assertion that > > "You could put this assertion about my predicate in your OWL engine if you > wish" > > and leave it at that. > > Any thoughts? There are some best practises to writing and and publishing RDF vocabs. You can find them on the W3C site : http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/ I would have a look at how FOAF or some other similar project generate human-readable documentation for their RDF vocabs, I think there is some tool which does it, but I can't recall its name off the top of my head. Mischa
