Following right on from yesterday’s post on ORE and POWDER, I’ve attempted to map the worked examples in the ORE User Guide for RDF/XML (specifically Sect. 3) to POWDER to show that POWDER can be used to model ORE, see
Resource Maps Encoded in POWDER
(A full explanation for each example is given in the RDF/XML Guide, Sect. 3 which should be consulted.)
This could just all be sheer doolally or might possibly turn out to have a modicum of instructional value – I don’t know. (It would be real good to get some feedback here.) There are, however, a couple points to note in mapping ORE to POWDER:
- The POWDER form is actually more long-winded because it splits the RDF triples into subject and predicate/object divisions, with the first listed within an and the second within a . The net effect, however, may be somewhat cleaner since POWDER uses a simple XML format rather than RDF/XML.
- POWDER only supports simple object types (literals or resources) so the blank nodes in the RDF/XML examples for dcterms:creator cannot be mapped as such. I have chosen here to use either foaf:name or foaf:page value.
- Likewise, and as far as I am aware, POWDER does not support datatyping but I could be wrong on this. I have thus dropped the datatypes on dcterms:created and dcterms:modified.
This is a fairly naïve mapping. POWDER’s real strength comes in defining groups of resources with its powerful pattern matching capabilities, whereas here I am using a named single resource in each
element. I think, though, this does show how the abstract ORE data model can be serialized in yet another format.