On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Mischa Tuffield <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
Hi Paul, If you only have a few properties to define, you might look at http://open.vocab.org/ which handles this all quite nicely for you. For example, I've abused the Music Ontology modeling in the past by creating my own term to specify the composer associated with a classical music recording http://open.vocab.org/docs/composer (which de-refs to a nice html page in browser or an rdf description w/ appropriate headers all thnx to open.vocab) -Kurt J
