W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2012

Vocabulary alignment

From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:49:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4F7E217B.2090702@koeln.de>
To: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi all,

Via Michael Hausenblas [1] I just learnt about your work in standardising various vocabularies. After skimming the working drafts for them I noticed what seems like some inconsistencies in the level of integrating the vocabularies with each other and other work. I wondered if that's just an oversight or if there were actually good reasons for that.

The "Data Catalog Vocabulary" [2] uses a term from FOAF, namely foaf:Organization. "Terms for describing people" [3] then also seems to be largely based on FOAF, and based on "An organization ontology" [4] which, however, defines its own class org:Organization. Was there a particular reason for that? And also for defining org:hasMember as an equivalent property to foaf:member instead of re-using that?
(Btw: The section about org:hasMember mentions an inverse org:memberOf which is not defined separately. But I'm actually in favour of not defining inverses. And the domain and range of org:hasMember seem switched.)

I also see some other potential mappings or opportunities for re-use: dcat:Dataset could be a sub-class or replaced with void:Dataset [5]. And in "The RDF Data Cube Vocabulary" [6] I find another class, qb:DataSet, but that seems to have a more specialised purpose.


[1] https://plus.google.com/102497386507936526460/posts/Xswyq5GxdvL
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 22:50:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:36 UTC