0

I'm work in a project and I have to make a description of several services. I use Linked USDL and RDF. I want know if the description is correct in that way. Basically, I have services, properties and values of properties. Each file has the description of each service. As following:

@prefix dc:      <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
@prefix legal:   <http://www.linked-usdl.org/ns/usdl-legal#> .
@prefix foaf:    <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
@prefix vann:    <http://purl.org/vocab/vann/> .
@prefix org:     <http://www.w3.org/ns/org#> .
@prefix rdfs:    <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix price:   <http://www.linked-usdl.org/ns/usdl-price#> .
@prefix usdl:    <http://www.linked-usdl.org/ns/usdl#> .
@prefix xsd:     <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix owl:     <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdf:     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix dei:     <http://dei.uc.pt/rdf/dei#> .
@prefix gr:      <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#> .
@prefix skos:    <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .

rdf:Standard_M1__Extra_Large
      rdfs:CPU "8 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 2 EC2 Compute Units each)"^^xsd:string ;
      rdfs:Cost "0.888"^^xsd:float ;
      rdfs:EBS-OptimizedAvailable
              "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
      rdfs:IOPerformance "High"^^xsd:string ;
      rdfs:OS "Windows"^^xsd:string ;
      rdfs:Platform "64-bit"^^xsd:string ;
      rdfs:RAM "15"^^xsd:float ;
      rdfs:Storage "1690"^^xsd:float .
Joshua Taylor
  • 84,998
  • 9
  • 154
  • 353
Gabriela Cavalcante
  • 85
  • 2
  • 11
  • 1
    You should not be defining new vocabulary in the `rdf:` and `rdfs:` namespaces. And why do you include so many prefix declarations if you're only using one of them? – Joshua Taylor Oct 10 '14 at 01:25
  • ok, I will remove the other prefix declarations. I thought of using the prefix _gr:_ to describe the services. I don't have a lot of data to describe, only the property name and its value. That did stay me with doubt about which prefix I should use exactly. – Gabriela Cavalcante Oct 10 '14 at 03:31
  • It's better to reuse existing vocabulary (rdf:type, rdfs:label, foaf:knows, etc) when available, but for new properties and classes, you should define your own in your own namespace. – Joshua Taylor Oct 10 '14 at 10:30
  • I just noticed, the issue with defining terms in the rdf: and rdfs: namespaces was a problem in [one of your earlier questions](http://stackoverflow.com/q/24540653/1281433), too. RDF uses URIs to identify things. Although you can use any URI to mean anything, the benefit of this model is that people agree by convention to use particular URIs to mean particular things. E.g., rdf:type is a property indicating that the subject has the object as a type. Convention also typically dictates that you don't define new URIs in existing, well-known namespaces. – Joshua Taylor Oct 11 '14 at 12:46
  • Thanks, Joshua. You helped me a lot with the explanation. – Gabriela Cavalcante Oct 20 '14 at 14:08

1 Answers1

0

As noted above:

I just noticed, the issue with defining terms in the rdf: and rdfs: namespaces was a problem in one of your earlier questions, too. RDF uses URIs to identify things. Although you can use any URI to mean anything, the benefit of this model is that people agree by convention to use particular URIs to mean particular things. E.g., rdf:type is a property indicating that the subject has the object as a type. Convention also typically dictates that you don't define new URIs in existing, well-known namespaces.

Paul Sweatte
  • 24,148
  • 7
  • 127
  • 265