Re: Longwell display of RDF / configuration question

From: Jon Crump <>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:00:36 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> This comes up often enough to require a FAQ entry, I suppose.
> The problem is that facet values need to be URIs, not literals, in order to
> be shown as a restriction (otherwise, there is no way to 'reference' an
> isolated literal uniquely!)


Thanks for the reply; as I read it, I realized I had stated the question
incorrectly, though your answer was nonetheless relevant. For the purposes
of clarification, however, let me restate:

in File A I have.

<uwdl:Record_A> <dc:location> <#china>.
<#china> <dc:title> 'China'; <dcterms:isPartOf> <#asia>.
<#asia> <dc:title> 'Asia'; <dcterms:isPartOf> <#world>.
<#world> <dc:title> 'World'.

in File B I have:

<uwdl:Record_B> <dc:location> <#china>; <dc:location> <#asia>.
<#china> <dc:title> 'China'.
<#asia> <dc:title> 'Asia'.

Now when longwell aggregates the two models, the Location facet shows that
there are two records with location #china, but only one record with
location #asia. This is because Record_A and Record_B share a resource
<#china>, but Record_A does not have a resource <#asia>, it is only linked
to that resource through a separate statement:

<#china> <dc:title> 'China'; <dcterms:isPartOf> <#asia>.

Does Record_A require an explicit <dc:location> <#asia>? Or does Record B
need a separate statement:

<#china> <dc:title> 'China'; <dcterms:isPartOf> <#asia>.

The problem derives from the fact that the original XML of File A
contained separate fields for 'site' 'city' 'state/province' and 'nation,'
thus making it possible with XSLT to generate that hierarchy (yes I know,
I've been reading about how ill-advised I am to construct RDF models with
XSLT. But its the tool I have, and the only one I know). File B, however,
had no such hierarchy implied in the original XML; locations had to be
split out of a single semi-colon delimited string.


On a separate matter. Is there documentation anywhere for exactly how the
free-text search field works? Its behavior is a little unexpected and I've
been trying to infer its rules of operation. It will not, for example,
search on a string of integers, right?

Many thanks again for your reply and to all the development folks who are
so generous with their time.

J.J. Crump
Dept. of History 353560
University of Washington
Seattle, WA. 98195
Received on Thu May 12 2005 - 18:59:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT