Difference between revisions of "ADAPT2 RDF Binding"
From PAWS Lab
(→Tentative Conventions) |
(→Tentative Conventions) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* ER Element is RDF-serialized - <span style="color:green;">✓</span> (green check-mark) | * ER Element is RDF-serialized - <span style="color:green;">✓</span> (green check-mark) | ||
<span style='color:green;background-color:lightgreen;padding:2px;border:1px solid green;'>Done</span> | <span style='color:green;background-color:lightgreen;padding:2px;border:1px solid green;'>Done</span> | ||
| − | <span style='color:white;background-color:green;padding:2px | + | <span style='color:white;background-color:green;padding:2px;'>Done</span> |
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework RDF] Serialization of ER Element is arguably unnecessary - <span style="color:red;">✗</span> (red ballot X) | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework RDF] Serialization of ER Element is arguably unnecessary - <span style="color:red;">✗</span> (red ballot X) | ||
* Decision on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework RDF] serialization needs clarification - <span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold;">?¿</span> (bold blue question mark and inverted question mark) | * Decision on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework RDF] serialization needs clarification - <span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold;">?¿</span> (bold blue question mark and inverted question mark) | ||
Revision as of 17:30, 19 May 2009
|
|
This page is under construction and requires cleaning |
The main purpose of this effort is to map entity-relationship models of applications in ADAPT2 architecture to RDF. If necessary, appropriate comments would be given about models, schemata and vocabularies themselves.
Further work has the following structural units:
- ER Models - describe individual adaptive applications. Each entity and relationship is supplied with a list of suggested RDF bindings
- RDF schemata - describe classes and properties with suggested use in describing entities and relationships of applications. Each schema can have several vocabularies identified by prefixes
Contents
Tentative Conventions
- Objects and Entities are shown in boldface
- Properties and relationships - regular face
- Schema is written in upper case, e.g. DC, vocabulary in lower case, e.g. dc, dcterms
- A chain of Object/Property statements is abbreviated with the help of → (right arrow), e.g. rdf:Description→rdf:type→rss:channel
- Domain-Range pair of a Property is prefixed with :: (double colon) and connected by ⇒ (double rignt arrow), e.g. lom:annotation :: lom:LearningObject⇒lom:Annotation
- ER Element is RDF-serialized - ✓ (green check-mark)
Done Done
- RDF Serialization of ER Element is arguably unnecessary - ✗ (red ballot X)
- Decision on RDF serialization needs clarification - ?¿ (bold blue question mark and inverted question mark)
ER Models
- Knowledge Tree - course portal
- WebEx - application serving dissected examples
- PERSEUS - adaptive functionality profider
- QuizPACK - a package of parametrized quizzes in C
- CUMULATE - Centralized User Modeling Server
RDF Schemata and Vocabularies
- RDF - has single vocabulary rdf
- RDFS - has single vocabulary rdfs
- OWL
- Dublin Core - has vocabularies dc, dcterms, dcmitypes
- RSS - has single vocabulary rss (here we mean RSS v.1.0)
- FOAF - has single vocabulary foaf
- LOM - has vocabularies lom, lomvoc, lomstruc, lomagglvl, lomstatus, lominttype, lomlrtype, lomintlvl, lomsemden, lominteur, lomcon, lomdiff, lomrole, lombrotech, lomostech, lompurp
Polisemy AKA Equivalence
Among various RDF schemata and vocabularies there exist overlap in what they actually mean. For example, dc:title, rdf:label, and rss:title all mean the same. We will maintain (our) classes of equivalence as a reference to RDF homonyms.
