strategy for encoding bibo as rdfa
Bruce D'Arcus
and that the upshot was it's a PITA ATM (since there's no syntactic
sugar for it).
So does it make sense to promote a strategy for potential publishers
to simply avoid encoding the contributor list properties in RDFa, and
instead just encode the (unordered) dcterms:contributor
sub-properties?
Bruce
Dan Brickley
You might also get in touch with the RDFa WG, who are right now
working on RDFa 1.1.
I don't see anything in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/ but I'm sure they
must have touched on this issue...
Dan
Dan Brickley
Replying mostly to say that, and to make sure this makes it into the
mailing list as I don't see it in
http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/browse_thread/thread/deff184a24e04bce
yet (presume you're not on the list).
On 3 February 2011 23:48, Toby Inkster <ma...@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:51:54 +0100
> Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything in
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/ but I'm sure they
>> must have touched on this issue...
>
> We did consider a few options, but in the end didn't add any shortcuts
> for rdf:List.
>
> I believe most/all of the places bibo uses lists, it also allows
> rdf:Seq. rdf:Seq and its ilk are not too bad in RDFa. If you're happy
> to leave out the explicit rdf:type for the Seq, then it's just:
>
> <ol about="#SouthPacific" rel="bibo:authorList">
> <li rel="rdf:_1">
> <span property="foaf:name">Richard Rodgers</span>
> </li>
> <li rel="rdf:_2">
> <span property="foaf:name">Oscar Hammerstein II</span>
> </li>
> </ol>
And in RDFa 1.1, they won't have to declare rdf: in each instance doc? right?
> A future RDFa Working Group could come up with something, but rdf:List
> is in practice not used an awful lot outside of OWL ontologies, and
> we've not seen a massive demand for these shortcuts. In the end I think
> consensus was to keep the language simpler and leave them out.
Good to know...
cheers,
Dan
> In those occasional cases where you want them though, I agree they can
> be annoying.
>
> http://ontologi.es/rail/routes/gb/HXS3.xhtml
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:ma...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>
>
Ivan herman
Well, it seems that the BIBO usage might be a clear use case after all, which may make us reconsider this. Is it known how widely it is used and how badly the issue of lists affects that community?
Ivan
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bibliographic Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bibliographic-ontolog...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bibliographic-ontology-spec...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
>
----
Ivan Herman
Bankrashof 108, 1183NW Amstelveen, The Netherlands
tel: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.ivan-herman.net
Bruce D'Arcus
I personally have nothing but anecdotal evidence that bibo is being used (in some library linked data work, in Zotero, etc). But clearly bibliographic data more generally is a case where ordered contributor lists are important.
In our case, we never settled, BTW, whether to use lists or collections for this case.
Dan Brickley
> I personally have nothing but anecdotal evidence that bibo is being used (in
> some library linked data work, in Zotero, etc). But clearly bibliographic
> data more generally is a case where ordered contributor lists are important.
Have a look at Sindice.com; you can search w/ triple patterns to see
which terms are being used, and where...
Dan
Bruce D'Arcus
So, for example, if I search for the term bibo:Article, I get "21.7 thousand"?
If I search for bibo:authorList, I get "1.05 thousand"?
That kind of thing?
Is that enough to justify the use case?
Bruce