Post

Author

Password

URI Delete Entry?

Title

Content

<div>Although there's definitely a place for up-front schema design,
while coding it's often convenient to leave such stuff open,
subject to change as the code informs. RDF instance data still
makes a lot of (semantic) sense without having a schema/ontology,
so this can be deferred indefinitely...
 
 Sometime soon I'm going to need a RESTful web service
description language and an access control/authentication language 
(note to self: remember to check what 
<a href="http://wymiwyg.org/knobot?appendLang=en">KnoBot</a> does
for these - is there an ESW page for the latter yet?)
Of the 
<a href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/WebDescriptionProposals">WebDescriptionProposals</a>,

<a href="http://purl.org/NET/iand">Ian Davis</a>' 
<a href="http://iandavis.com/2005/web-description/waif-20050727">WAIF</a>
looks the best fit for what I need, not least because it's already
RDF-friendly. From his write-up there's everything needed to put
manually put together a schema/ontology 
(hmm, the parameters stuff looks like it might be expressable
pretty richly with OWL cardinality). But I think there's
enough info in his instance examples to automatically build the
skeleton of a schema - which is all I need in the near future (to
use with Jena's schemagen, that autogenerates Java source
corresponding to classes & properties).
Has anyone set something up for this yet? For Jena? If not I'll
add it to my to-do, shouldn't take long at all (and could actually
make a handy online service, giving me another use case...)
Here's how I imagine it working:
<ol>
 <li>RDF model is loaded with all available instance data</li>
 <li>RDFS/OWL inference appliedÂ </li>
 <li>Statements matchingÂ  
 {?c rdf:type rdfs:Class}, 
 {?p rdf:type rdf:Property}, 
 {?p rdfs:domain ?d} etc extracted
 (and/or corresponding OWL terms)</li>
 <li>Statements annotating the classes and properties
 extracted</li>
 <li>Skeleton schema serialised outÂ </li>
</ol>
I'm not 100% sure about 4 (which in practice would be part of
3), I think 
{?c ?p o?}, 
{?p ?p 2 o?} might do the trick. For
those cases, and in general, it would be necessary to filter out
any statements involving a bnode (assuming there were some
inferred).Â 
The extraction could be done in the main code, but could be
sweeter done as a SPARQL query.Â 
The resulting schema would be missing things like special
(individual) resource, and I doubt much OWLishness could be
reliably extracted. But still it could be a good timesaver. 
Heh, could probably have coded it in the time it taken to write
this, but I'm meant to be working...@en
</div>