[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Early source package modeling in RDF - Was: Re: Advocating the use of RDF for Debian's published metadata


FYI, I've been working on adding some RDF descriptions of source
packages to the PTS (committed in SVN, not yet in production).

The RDF models :
- a source packaging "project" for each source package
- the different revisions of the source known by the PTS
- for the one in unstable (as the PTS does), links to the upstream and
  debian versions and the source package files
- a description of the upstream project (would need more than the
  Homepage: link or name to match against)
- pointers to the Ubuntu packaging couterpart and revision known by the

You'll hopefully see a coloured version of an example for apache2 in [1].

More details on debian-qa, in Message-ID:
<878vd4b7gw.fsf@inf-8657.int-evry.fr> (thread at [0]).

Maybe we should really create this RDF metadata of Debian project on
alioth or somewhere else to coordinate ?

Who would be interested to participate ?

Best regards,

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2012/08/msg00099.html
[1] http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/weblog/2012/08/24/generating-rdf-description-of-debian-package-sources-with-adms-sw/

Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu> writes:

> I think it would help here, to adopt standards for more interoperability
> of Debian's metadata with others'. 
> The "package metadata" could even be delivered on the Web of Data
> (Linked Open Data), right from the Debian servers, to allow any
> application to be created, that would consume such metadata.
> If RDF/XML (as seems to be proposed by SPDX, to be verified once the
> Linux Foundation site is back) is not suitable, then another format
> would be great as long as it relies on some explicit prefix+suffix
> combination, in order to allow for extensibility, for instance some JSON
> variant of RDF like Turtle [1].
> If a package can both be described with some generic purpose
> "ontology"/standard/schema (for instance the one you envisioned
> initially in DEP 11), and also, depending on context (embedded or
> science, for instance) with another set of metadata (spdx or whatever
> else), you'd be able to mix in the same file, metadata relating to
> different contexts.
> Still, I'm not sure RFC822-style is perfectly compliant with the habit
> of RDF to separate prefix and suffix with a column character ':'. Maybe
> '_' could act as such a separator (must say I haven't checked the RFC
> for allowed tokens in the grammar) ?
> Let's try with an example (btw, the DEP
> http://wiki.debian.org/AppStreamDebianProposal *lacks* examples IMHO) :
> In turtle representation format for RDF, one would have a document that
> looks like this :
>         @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
>         @prefix dep11: <http://www.debian.org/whatever/dep11#>.
>         @prefix debbugs: <http://www.debian.org/whatever/depxx#>.
>         @prefix spdx: <http://spdx.org/ontology#>.
>         <http://packages.qa.debian.org/iceweasel> 
>           a dep11:DebianPackage;
>           dep11:application "Iceweasel";
>           dep11:package "iceweasel";
>           spdx:license "MPL-1.1"
>           debbugs:bugs <http://bugs.debian.org/iceweasel>.
> (Maybe I didn't understand very well the Application and Package
> meanings in your DEP11 proposal, btw.)
> Anyway, as you can see, here we could have several "domains" of metadata
> sources (ontologies / prefixes) to describe the same package combined in
> a single document.
> In RFC822-style, this could be something like :
> DEP11_Application: Iceweasel
> DEP11_Package: iceweasel
> spdx_license: MPL-1.1
> debbugs_bugs: http://bugs.debian.org/iceweasel
> etc.
> But clearly, not reinventing the wheel should be a goal, and adopting
> existing standards for meta-data representation would be my choice, i.e.
> Semantic Web standards (namely RDF).
> Of course, translators from/to different syntaxes will be trivial to
> develop, but if, from the source, a proper standard is used, it can be
> readily delivered to the Web without any transformation needed. Such an
> approach (often called Linked Data), clearly favors interoperability
> (more at http://linkeddata.org/guides-and-tutorials if I failed to make
> my point).
> Again, in case you'd doubt it, RDF is just a model, which can be written
> in a number of different formats (not only XML), but the key here is the
> embedded identification of the reference of the ontologies/prefixes
> which render the documents self described and extensible, out of the
> box.
> Note that the same rationale stands for all metadata to be eventually
> published on the Web by Debian servers.
> Hope this helps.
> Best regards,
> [0] http://www.w3.org/RDF/
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/
> -- 
> Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
> Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
> Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)

Olivier BERGER 
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)

Reply to: