Re: [office-metadata] Linking in a vocabulary

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

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.

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. ;-)

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!