Re: [office-metadata] Question about the IRI of a RDF subject from an ODF document

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Feb 6, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Elias Torres wrote:

>> And what do you think of the idea I floated earlier to use the  
>> manifest?
>>
>>   <manifest:file-entry
>>       manifest:uri="http://flickr.com/photos/doe/1";
>>       manifest:full-path="Pictures/foo.jpg."/>
>
> This is the equivalent N3, right?
>
> [
>   rdf:type manifest:file-entry ;
>   manifest:uri "http://flickr.com/photos/doe/1"; ;
>   manifest:full-path "Pictures/foo.jpg"
> ]
>
> I think it's ok, but it's quite verbose, 3 triples, to do what 1  
> triple
> using owl:sameAs does.

If one were to represent is as RDF, yes (note: I discovered more  
recently that the manifest allows a structure that would break RDF  
compatability, so we can't say the manifest is RDF unless we change  
the schema). But, it's only one additional triple, because two are  
always there anyway (all embedded files must be registered as such in  
ODF 1.0, notwithstanding metadata).

>> In that case, if a uri is present, then that is used as the subject.
>> Otherwise, one adds the path to the base uri.
>
> I guess what I'm after is trying to solve the problem of "relative  
> URIs"
> because the string (not a URI) "Pictures/foo.jpg" is only valid  
> within this
> package.

Right.

> If we were able to generate globally unique URIs then we could
> make use of the statements (knowledge) made in any ODF also outside  
> of it.
> In other words, I'm trying to reduce the amount of special processing
> within ODF spec before the metadata model can be useful in third- 
> party RDF
> tools.

Yes, I know; the important thing is the global, globally unique, and  
stable URI.

Bruce