Re: [office-metadata] Linking in a vocabulary

[Elias Torres <eliast@us.ibm.com>]

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!
>
>