[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tag] Proof of Concept Example of Representation
Sorry, that RDF instance had errors. Here is one which validates against the W3C online validator (Note: if this is viewed from the list archive there will be ';' inserted after attributes and these will need removing before validation.) I replaced dc:Identifier with a custom ta:id since I think dc:Identifier in the same context would mean the ID of the target, rather than the intended ID of the test assertion. <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"; xmlns:ta="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#fictitious-example-ta-schema";> <rdf:Statement dc:date="2007-12-24T10:37:00" dc:Source="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-statement-00001"; ta:id="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00001";> <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#Property.SchemaValid"/> <rdf:object rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/xsdrt/maindoc/UBL-Invoice-1.0.xsd"/> <rdf:subject rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.Details/"/> <dc:identifier rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00001"/> </rdf:Statement> <rdf:Statement dc:date="2007-12-24T10:37:00" dc:Source="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-statement-00002"; ta:id="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00002";> <rdf:subject rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.Details/"/> <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#Property.Contains"/> <rdf:object rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.IssueDate.Date/"/> <dc:identifier rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00002"/> </rdf:Statement> </rdf:RDF> Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk: > Of course, with RDF, as well as catering for a splitting > of the predicate into property name and property value > (target A 'has a property called B with a value C') it > also provides for the splitting of the predicate into a > verb and object (more like our view of a predicate) so > > rdf:subject = TA Target > rdf:predicate = verb of what we'd call the predicate > rdf:object = object noun(s) of what we'd call the predicate > > This might be more practical for some types of TA predicates. > It seems a bit arbitrary, then, how the predicate is split. > So it seems that rdf:predicate has a coded value or name and > rdf:object typically has a literal value; rdf:object is more > variable while rdf:predicate is more likely to be a fixed > value defined in a list somewhere. In my example the rdf:pre- > dicate is itself a name-value pair with 'Property' as the > general name and with values 'Contains' and 'SchemaValid' > which are limited vocabulary coded values, well-defined > somewhere. So 'Property' could be a name defined for TAs in > general while 'Contains' and 'SchemaValid' would be more > specific to the subject of the specification or implementation > and it might be best left to TA writers to list and define these. > 'Contains', however might be considered so generic as to warrant > being defined for TAs as a whole, along with a few other terms > like it. > > Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk: > >> Another way to represent the test assertions using RDF might be >> like that below. >> Not sure about whether it's OK to use dc:identifier for TA ID or >> OK to use rdf:Statement with rdf:about pointing to Spec Ref. >> Not sure how to make more complex TAs this way. (May be safer to >> create a special TA vocabulary instead of just using RDF's and >> perhaps Dublin Cores's to make the semantics specific to TAs.) >> >> Subject = TA Target >> Predicate = name of name/value pair of what we'd call the predicate >> Object = value of name/value pair of what we'd call the predicate >> >> It should be well within scope of RDF to add qualifiers for targets >> and/or to include classes and subclasses of targets, I would think. >> >> >> >> <?xml version="1.0"?> >> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; >> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";> >> <rdf:Description >> rdf:about="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-example"; dc:date="2007-12-24T10:37:00" dc:title="Example Test Assertion List for example 1.0 >> Invoice >> Subset"> >> <rdf:Statement >> rdf:about="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-statement-00001";> >> <rdf:subject >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.Details/"/> >> <rdf:predicate >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#Property";>SchemaValid</rdf:predicate> >> <rdf:object >> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/xsdrt/maindoc/UBL-Invoice-1.0.xsd"/> >> <dc:identifier >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00001"/> >> </rdf:Statement> >> <rdf:Statement >> rdf:about="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-statement-00002";> >> <rdf:subject >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.Details/"/> >> <rdf:predicate >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#Property";>Contains</rdf:predicate> >> <rdf:object >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.IssueDate.Date/"/> >> <dc:identifier >> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00002"/> >> </rdf:Statement> >> </rdf:Description> >> </rdf:RDF> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk: >> >>> That file didn't come out too well on the mail list archive >>> - the .rdf extension appears as a '.bin' file online and gets >>> wrongly treated by applications so here is a slightly improved >>> version with a .xml extension and minor corrections. (Just a >>> proof of concept taking a fictitious UBL subsetting use case.) >>> >>> - Steve >>> >>> Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk: >>> >>>> Just been experimenting a little with a representation idea. >>>> It works out quite well. It's RDF but could be converted to >>>> any other representation. (Starting with RDF might ensure >>>> GRDDL could be used, say, to convert to a form for Semantic >>>> Web or storage in RDF database.) What works nicely is the >>>> fact that limited vocabularies (keywords/tags) can be created >>>> locally in an accompanying file and pointed to using XML:base >>>> and IDs. No Prerequisites here or dependencies or qualifiers >>>> but these should be easily added I hope. >>>> -- >>>> Stephen Green >>>> >>>> Partner >>>> SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk >>>> Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606 >>>> >>>> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]