Re: [office-metadata] Groups - MetaData-Examples_07-06-21(MetaData-Examples_07-06-21.odt) uploaded

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On 6/22/07, Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@sun.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree that we should be as precise as possible, on the other hand we
>> should be as well consistent with our vocabulary.
>> Just to be sure, is for you the term "resource description" similar to
>> the RDF object and "resource property" the RDF property (predicate)?
>
> The RDF *subject*; the thing. Like objects vs. attributes.
Here you are confusing me.

You introduced a new term "attribute", is it a W3C RDF vocabulary.
I found "attribute" mentioned in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/
"RDF properties may be thought of as attributes of resources and in this 
sense correspond to traditional attribute-value pairs. RDF properties 
also represent relationships between resources."

The value is still the RDF object, see also
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-data-model

>
>> > Third, as I mentioned before, I think this nested RDF/XML obscures
>> > what's going on with the graph, and should be:
>> Bruce, you must admit it is only human taste to nest it or use an IRI
>> placeholder. One way or the other no parser will be obfuscated by this.
>
> Yes, but this document is not for tools; it's for humans.
I am human and see no obfuscation. ;-)
Bruce, all I want to say, it's a matter of personal taste and habit but 
we can change this, as it seems important for you as both ways are valid.
>
>> > <med:Patient rdf:about="http://ex-hospital-DB/patients/ID98765";>
>> >    <ex:hasID rdf:resource="ID98765"/>
>> >    <ex:hasVitals 
>> rdf:resource="http://hospital-DB/medical-note-cc1593"/>
>> > </med:Patient>
>> >
>> > <med:VitalData rdf:about="http://hospital-DB/medical-note-cc1593";>
>> >    <rdf:type
>> > 
>> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/opendocument/meta/package#Element"/> 
>>
>> >
>> > </med:VitalData>
>> >
>> > Finally, surely the rdf:type statement there is wrong, or at least
>> > unnecessary?
>> Some problem, as mentioned above. The med:VitalData is as in content
>> data by default of type xs:string and therefore not of type odf:Element.
>
> No; an rdf:type is not a rdf:datatype!  Now I'm confused what you're
> trying to do with this example.
Please do not interpret too much into it.
The rdf:type was part of the copy/paste problem.
And I also agree xs:string would be the rdf:datatype not the rdf:type.
Thanks for clarifying this and sorry for the confusion.

Svante