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
(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 <iriset> and the second within a <descriptorset>. 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 <iriset> through the <includeresource> element. I think, though, this does show how the abstract ORE data model can be serialized in yet another format.