Setting properties on metamodel level
(related to W3C MAWG action 47)
We are defining our ontology not in a way that it will encompass all elements of the standards considered. Thus the problem of setting on the API and mapping to a standard can be viewed as a metadata mapping (crosswalk) issue between our ontology and standard X, where X might be more or less expressive (for a certain set of proerties) than our ontology. The problems encountered with setting on the metamodel level will be similar than those encountered when defining crosswalks between two standards.
Resources on handling incomplete mappings between standards
- OCLC Crosswalk Web Service 
- Web service for conversion between a number of metadata stadards
- Ignores fields for which no mapping exists, reports errors (Xpath like)
- PBCore Mappings 
- Contains a collections of possible mapping problems and defines rules how to deal with elements for which no mapping is available.
Write APIs on the Semantic Web
- pushback - Write Data Back From RDF to Non-RDF Sources
- they are developing a ontology and API for writing back from the Semantic Web to legacy data sources
- they also consider forms including RDF data for users input (RDForms)
- one of the use cases mentions writing back to Flickr API
- to clarify in order to determine whether this is relevant for MAWG
- is a 1:1 mapping between properties in the proprietary data source and the exposed RDF assumed?
- we would not use RDForm, but their "RDF write-wrapper" with our setter methods
- The Bondi contact API (interoperability of address books acrss mobile devices) has been mentioned during the discussion about the API specification. It has one setProperty function, that takes the property name and the value. A basic set of properties is assumed to be supported by devices, a DeviceAPIError exception is raised.