Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Nickerson, David Phillip wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> To repond to your points:
>
> 1) I think the current state in the simulation metadata specification is
> that it is recommended best practice to specify a rdf ID for every
> simulation, mainly driven by the example of being able to define graphs for
> that simulation. Do you think we need to make it stronger and state that
> rdf ID's are required in the simulation metadata specification?
>
The problem with this is that the simulation metadata specification
describes the RDF that should be used for simulation metadata, not the
RDF/XML. You could use the same RDF schema to represent the data in
another format, such as as a text file containing the triples, or in a
relational database (or some data-structure in Zope, or an in-memory
data-structure in an application). Therefore, it seems conceptually
wrong for the metadata specification to put a mandatory constraint on
what RDF/XML you can use for given RDF.

The wording in the current draft for graph metadata:
"When describing graph nodes in RDF/XML, it is recommended that the node
be given an explicit resource URL, rather than using the anonymous node
facilities. This makes it easier for other RDF documents to refer to the
graph."

The simulation metadata specification does not yet have wording like
this, but it probably should.

Best regards,
Andrew

---

• [cellml-discussion] simulation metadata editing, Matt , 12/04/2006
  • [cellml-discussion] simulation metadata editing, Nickerson, David Phillip, 12/05/2006
    • [cellml-discussion] simulation metadata editing, Andrew Miller, 12/05/2006
  • [cellml-discussion] simulation metadata editing, Bob Gustafson, 12/05/2006
    • [cellml-discussion] simulation metadata editing, Andrew Miller, 12/05/2006

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.