Full of energy i ran at full speed into the RDF specs, oh boy it's solid! Even with the best of intentions they are to heavy for me, to I though about another route into this mountain of knowledge that I've never climbed before. I realized that I needed examples that I could work with and also a tool to get my own examples going. The tool part was easy since I've known about protégé - a free, open source ontology editor and knowledge-base framework) from Stanford. I downloaded a copy of the current beta and started it up and wanted to create a small taxonomy. Uugh, for a first-timer it's big and all the terms used doesn't give any (relevant) special meaning to me. Properties must part of the triplet, but the classes do i need them? Okay, i must find some examples and went for a taxonomy since i figured that taxonomy are one of the simplest things in the semweb world. I found some on the UN website, but I didn't find any in RDF or something alike. Back to searching and then I found nice little example by Styrheim called Taxonomies in OWL. In this article the example is based on the taxonomy of the Germanic languages, and it's shown in three variants:
When I loaded this example into Protege it didn't look right, since 'Danish' was at the top level. After taking a second look i found an extra whitespace in the definition of Danish with rdf:ID="Danish ".
The example is exactly so small that it's easy to grasp and still contains the needed complexity to give an idea of how it works. I'm sure that there are tons of good examples out there, but the main point here was that I was looking for an example for a Taxonomy in RDF but found that it needed RDFS/OWL. Does it have to be like that? I just thought of a statement that would sound like:
Danish is a kind of Continental North Germanic
which is a triplet, that could be expressed in RDF, but with my private/custom property, so in that sence it's better to use a standard property of RDFS and express it all in OWL, which also deems them as classes.