Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2008-06-26 12:26:09
Size: 1025
Editor: kfc
Comment: Created by the PackagePages action.
Revision 2 as of 2010-03-17 13:08:52
Size: 1025
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
No differences found!

Introduction

Basic RDF describes references using names like hasConstituent, isMemberOfGroup and so on. This is very generic, which presents a challenge for presentation of an object.

Sample case

We have a collection of CDs. A CD entity references lyrics, covers and ripped data. We want to present a CD for an enduser. A verbose view could be made up of:

  • Title (Text)
  • Basic description (Text)
  • Tracklist (links to MP3 files)
  • The cover (as an inline JPEG)
  • Links to lyrics and homepage for the creators

The problem

If we use basic references, we can only differentiate between the cover and the tracks by following the links and check what type the destination has.

If we use explicit names like hasCover and hasTrack, we loose the ability to make a generic navigator for our DOMS.

The solution

Metadata on references, so a reference to a cover would be a hasPart with subtype coverReference. A generic part and a collection-specific part.

Metadata on references (last edited 2010-03-17 13:08:52 by localhost)