[esip-semanticweb] help with marking up WMS/WCS Capability docs?

Thu Jul 16 16:15:52 EDT 2009

Hello Chris,

I have not chimed in yet because I have not had a chance to review the
options for metadata in WMS, and I wanted to say something precise.
Essentially if you just want controlled vocabulary, XML and RDF are quite
similar (i.e. if Brian's machine tag implies a particular controlled
vocabulary for the value, then you have represented the information
isomorphically to using RDF objects for the concepts, and you can
crosswalk).  If you want to relate two objects, the xlink is XML's version
of what is native in RDF, but I think xlink is very limited as to the
meanings of the connections, whereas RDF lets the connection's meaning be
specified explicitly according to a convention.

 But meanwhile, could you explain your example more fully -- I don't
understand what

dataset=OMI_A_G

means (you called it a relationship).

Benno

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Christopher Lynnes
<Chris.Lynnes at nasa.gov>wrote:

> On Jul 15, 2009, at 6:52 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>
>  I am not deep in any one of these details, but I am a little familiar
>> with all the possibilities you mention. So consider the following as
>> notions to be verified:
>>
>> 1) RDFa won't fit gracefully into the OGC schema as written, because
>> it is using a different set of elements (that is, it is tuned to the
>> HTML elements). "To date, because XHTML is extensible while HTML is
>> not, RDFa has only been specified for XHTML 1.1." [1]  The way it
>> works is to add attributes, which must be in an RDFa-compatible XHTML
>> schema if the document is to validate.
>>
>> 2) I wholeheartedly endorse the intent to use controlled vocabularies
>> in a way that is compatible with the semantic web. All that should be
>> necessary to do this is to find a suitable place where a URI can be
>> placed.  Then you can create controlled vocabularies whose terms
>> correspond to URIs. There is extensive guidance on this topic at the
>> MMI site [2].  I do not know of any reason these approaches would be
>> incompatible with the ESIP ontologies.
>>
>> 3) The way OOSTethys [1] chose to add more specific descriptions/
>> references to SensorML/O&M was through the use of xlink, which is
>> supported in the OGC schema. Examples are on the OOSTethys site. As
>> far as I know, this is the most used OGC practice to meet this need to
>> date. (Because I don't know of any other particular recommendation.)
>> Note that if a standard allows a name to be specified as a URI (which
>> most of the SWE standards do, yes?), that is another place where the
>> sensor web.
>>
>>
> Can you point me to any specific examples (i.e., URLs to files)?
>
> I'm having some difficulty seeing how a *relationship*, like
> 'dataset=OMI_A_G' can be expressed with the xlink or URI...
>
> Thx,
>
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Christopher Lynnes wrote:
>>
>>  Greetings!
>>>
>>> Over in the Air Quality Cluster, we are experimenting with using
>>> some kind of structured markup / tagging of OGC WMS and WCS
>>> capabilities documents (inside <Keyword> elements) to allow us to do
>>> structured searches on the documents.  An example might be, "give me
>>> the layers where Dataset = 'OMI_AI_G'". Seehttp://
>>> wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/WMS_GetCapabilities#WMS_GetCapabilities_Layer_Description
>>>
>>> Thing is, we figure if we are going to try to implement this kind of
>>> markup with a quasi-controlled vocabulary, we should do it in such a
>>> way that it is compatible with or even leverages the semantic web.
>>> We have pondered a machine tags approach, e.g.,
>>> <Keyword>esip:dataset=OMI_AI_G</Keyword>.  (A link to an initial
>>> attempt of a WMS that includes the current keyword encoding:
>>> http://webapps.datafed.net/AIRNOW.ogc?service=wms&request=getCapabilities&version=1.1.1
>>> )
>>> .
>>>
>>> Alternatively, we have heard RDFa mentioned for microformats, though
>>> mostly in the context of XHTML.  Can this be applied to OGC's XML
>>> and if so, how?
>>>
>>> Can the ESIP Semantic Web cluster provide a recommendation or
>>> suggestion in how to move forward that would be:
>>> (a) flexible and extensible,
>>> (b) compatible with the evolving ESIP datatype and services ontology
>>> and
>>> (c) lightweight and easy to use?
>>> --
>>> Christopher Lynnes             NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2
>>> 301-614-5185
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> esip-semanticweb mailing list
>>> esip-semanticweb at rtpnet.org
>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb
>>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>> --------------
>> John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
>> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>>
>>
> --
> Christopher Lynnes             NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2         301-614-5185
>
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb
>

-- 
Dr. M. Benno Blumenthal          benno at iri.columbia.edu
International Research Institute for climate and society
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Lamont Campus, Palisades NY 10964-8000   (845) 680-4450
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20090716/16275e64/attachment.htm>