[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Linking in a vocabulary
Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 05/04/2007 10:42:22 AM: > Elias, > > Snipping to the request for more information: > > Elias Torres wrote: > <snip> > > >>Second question: How do I say that a term that is defined by more > >>specific metadata, through inline metadata association, should use that > >>triple and not the more general one that would apply to the document as > >>a whole? (Or is that something that we need to say in the proposal? That > >>inline metadata trumps vocabulary metdata applied to the document as a > >>whole? Well, more formally than that but you get the idea.) > >> > >> > > > >I don't think anything trumps anything. At the end, all we are doing is > >generating triples from all of the places in our package. We can have some > >provenance of where each triple came from, but they can all co-exist in a > >single graph. It really depends on your use, which trumps which. No > >normative trumping in our spec. > > > >However, I'd need more help understanding your scenario because it's a bit > >too high level for me at this point. Could you try first to give us some > >sample data you are trying to model and then we can figure out how to use > >the spec to encode it? > > > > > > > Well, assume that I have a Bible vocabulary for all the proper names in > an English translation of the Bible. > > That means that I have entries for (not complete): > > Joseph - advisor to the Pharoah > > Joseph - a musician in the service of David > > Joseph - husband of Mary > > Joseph - father of Jesus (as seen by his contemporaries) > > I could, of course, represent those subjects with a set of RDF > statements that delimit the verses where they appear. Right. Something like this, right? <text:p>Text from the Bible....more text<text:span m:about="urn:joseph-son-of-jacob" m:property="foaf:name">Joseph</text:span> more ...</text:p> > > In other words, a set of RDF statements about Joseph -advisor to the > Pharoah, plus Gen. 37:1-47:27, so that term will only be interpreted as > that Joseph within that verse range. > > But the problem of having the same string that represents different > subjects occurs in texts where that "easy" solution isn't possible. > > In other words, what if I have two separate vocabularies, one for Cato > (the elder) and Cato (the younger). In the context of a scholarly > article about Cato (the elder), if I don't do anything, that is the > triple(s) that should apply to any mention of "Cato." But, from time to > time, I want to mention Cato (the younger) and that should draw metadata > from a second vocabulary, perhaps the OCD (Oxford Classical Dictionary), > which Bruce has kindly encoded in RDF. ;-) This you mean in the manifest file.... <odf:ContextFile rdf:about="urn:doc-id" odf:path="context.xml"> <patrick:refersToVocabulary rdf:resource="urn:first-vocabulary"/> </odf:ContextFile> So an application can first go to the ContextFile and see which is the main vocabulary to search when looking for people's names. But then you confuse me.. what about a second vocabulary. I'm assuming you are willing to specify something at least in the content.xml that points to another vocabulary. <text:p xml:id="foo">Text...more text<text:span>Cato</text:span> more ...</text:p> Then you would add something in RDF/XML that says xml:id="foo" should use a second vocabulary. Is that what you want? It would have been nicer to just put the triple right in the doc with the meta field. <text:meta about="" property="p:overrideVocabulary" resource="urn:second-vocabulary"> put your text over here. </text:meta> But I think we agreed for now to just use RDF/XML to encode that information. Does this help at all? -Elias > > When I said "trump" what I meant was that the more specific metadata, > that which is associated inline, is used in preference to the general > metadata, which I have associated with the entire file. > > Think of it as being the same as an inherited attribute value where > inheritance is blocked by the specification of a specific attribute > value. (Close as I can come to a markup example.) > > The problem is that I don't know if we should say that in the proposal > or if not, how to say that in the metadata. > > There will be some documents that only use one vocabulary with no > conflicts but I suspect that is going to be the exception rather than > the rule. > > John Madden can confirm if that is going to be the case for medical > documents, but I suspect it will be true. > > >>Hope everyone is looking forward to a great weekend! > >> > >> > > > >Lots of home projects. Yeah! > > > > > > > Hopefully not! I have an ISO draft I have been promising for weeks now > that is top of the weekend stack! ;-) > > Hope you are having a great day! > > Patrick > > > >>Patrick > >> > >>-- > >>Patrick Durusau > >>Patrick@Durusau.net > >>Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface > >>Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model > >>Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 > >> > >>Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Patrick Durusau > Patrick@Durusau.net > Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface > Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model > Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 > > Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]