[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: About XML document linkage and Schemas.
Hello Didier, Heads or tails? I have been concerned with exactly this issue recently, and I have concluded the opposite to you! I wonder if part of the issue relates to an interpretation of RDF. RDF and Dublin Core (DC) have been closely associated, however they deal with very different things: - DC specifies a common series of tags that might apply to a wide range of resources - articles, songs, books, email. - RDF relates to the specification of statements about resources I mention this partly because of your statement: > Actually, it seems that yes I can embed a RDF > fragment to do so. IMO it is not really right to embed RDF within something. I know people often embed DC and that's why I'm drawing the distinction: <x:article ID="1"> <dc:title>Cows: Which way up?</dc:title> <dc:Creator>Didier PH Martin<cd:Creator> <x:subtitle> In-depth examination of whether a cow is controlled by its head or tail </x:subtitle> <x:text> <x:p>Cows are interesting beasts</x:p> </x:text> </x:article> This seems just about alright to me, but probably about as far as you should go with meta data. (You'll see later that I wouldn't even make the author a property of an article.) Anything more - keywords, categories and so on - should be elsewhere. For example: On my server: <rdf:Description about="http://didierserver/article[@ID=1]"> <dc:subject>Cows, heads, tails</dc:subject> </rdf:Description> and on the server storing classic works in the English language: <rdf:Description about="http://didierserver/article[@ID=1]"> <dc:subject>Bovine</dc:subject> <x:rating>Brilliant</x:rating> </rdf:Description> and on the server storing collected works of leading authors: <rdf:Description about="http://Didier Himself/"> <vcf:vCard><vcf:n><vcf:fn>Didier PH Martin</vcf:fn></vcf:n></vcf:vCard> <x:wrote> <rdf:Bag> <rdf:li resource="http://didierserver/article[@ID=1]" / <rdf:li resource="http://didierserver/poem[@ID=7]" / <rdf:li resource="http://otherserver/song[@ID=6]" / <rdf:Bag> </x:wrote> </rdf:Description> I have just implemented this very scenario on a server for publications. I have used XMLNews-Story to describe the articles themselves. That gives me the text of the article, its title and a few bits and bobs about people, countries and so on in the article. Then I use RDF to refer to this article and in one description I put the author, some keywords and so on. But the interesting thing is that you can then make further statements about that meta information. For example, to group all articles on the same topic - say your article and poem about cows, and my drawing of one - I can do this: <rdf:Description about="http://myserver/subjects/cows"> <x:related> <rdf:Bag> <rdf:li resource="http://didierserver/article[@ID=1]" / <rdf:li resource="http://didierserver/poem[@ID=7]" / <rdf:li resource="http://myserver/picture[@ID=20]" / <rdf:Bag> </x:related> </rdf:Description> In my system the basic unit is no longer the web page, because my web pages are made up from the following RDF statements: <rdf:Description ID="x"> <rdf:Bag> <rdf:li ID="rdf:_1" rdf:resource="/article[@ID=3]" /> <rdf:li ID="rdf:_2" rdf:resource="/meta/article[@ID=3]" /> </rdf:Bag> </rdf:Description> The resulting XML from this - resources get pulled in before the complete XML is emitted - then gets transformed to HTML. This seems more logical to me, since the HTML page is only one possible manifestation of that article. It raises an interesting problem for indexing and other software, because it means that the meta information is information about the article, not the web page. So if you use meta tags like dc:Creator, that is for the XMLNews-Story article, not the web page since the web page was 'created' by a machine on the fly. Currently much of what we do is oriented towards web pages - but actually they are increasingly becoming a means of viewing something else. In my case I would want an index server to index my RDF meta documents, not my HTML output. So, enough of my system - you asked about yours. How does what I have said relate to it? You suggest: > <myInvoice xmlns="http://www.xml.org/Myinvoice"> <------ and > that this URI > would point to a page containing links about this name space as found > actually in W3C site for their own name spaces. > ..... some content here...... > <rdf:RDF xmlns="....."> again same thing as above > ... all the limited meta data set here..... > </rdf:RDF> > ... other content here.... > </MyInvoice> I would suggest that this is not right. For a start you have to define the schema for myInvoice to be able to contain meta information about itself (unless you hold with this non-validation stuff that's doing the rounds, in which case you can have a fish inside your invoice if you want). But then it's no longer meta information if it's contained in the invoice. But if you want to say something *about* invoices, then you shouldn't have to modify the invoice schema. This is why I said in my previous email that you can't know all occurrences of meta information about your resource. I believe the semantic web requires us to allow our resources to go off and have a life of their own. Like our children we look on them affectionately and look after them but we can't say who their friends are. (See how Didier brings out the metaphor again!) For example, say your invoice is part of a legal dispute - is that a property of the invoice (in which case you add another element or possible value for an attribute) or is that a statement *about* the invoice (in which case you use RDF)? I would therefore suggest you turn the cow inside out: <rdf:RDF> <rdf:Description about="#1"> ... meta data ... </rdf:Description> <myInvoice xmlns="..."> ... invoice ... </myInvoice> </rdf:RDF> is a completely open and flexible solution. Whether you then use BizTalk to transport that is up to whatever situation you're in. To answer you specifically: > formally ;-) do we embed the document into the meta data and > transform the document into the meta data document as a > fragment or do we, instead, include meta data as a fragment > in the document. the tail? the head? which one? :-)) I think we embed the data in a document that includes the meta data, and then embed *that* in the BizTalk transport mechanism (or SOAP, or whatever you need for a particular job). Then we turn the cow inside out and have some barbecued ribs. Best regards, Mark Mark Birbeck Managing Director x-port.net Ltd. 220 Bon Marché Centre 241-251 Ferndale Road London SW9 8BJ w: http://www.iedigital.net/ t: +44 (171) 501 9502 e: Mark.Birbeck@i... xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|