Re: Longwell display of RDF / configuration question

From: Jon Crump <jjcrump_at_u.washington.edu>
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!)


Stefano,

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.

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