Re: RegOrg update + co-editor

Stasinos,

The problem was with the description of the rov:identifier property, which was in the same vocabulary as rov:registration. But Phil has since nuked the rov:identifier property in favour of the already existing adms:identifier property. So the issue is now moot.

Best,
Richard


On 24 Oct 2012, at 04:09, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:

> Richard, Phil, all,
> 
> On 24 October 2012 03:16, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:55, Phil Archer wrote:
>> 
>>>> 22. “The identifier relationship should not be used to link to the identifier issued by the authority that conferred legal entity status on an organization.” -- But it's a subproperty of rov:registration, so by using rov:registration, one automatically uses rov:identifier! Change this to say that the more specific sub-property rov:registration is available for identifiers that confer legal entity status.
>>> 
>>> One of us has this the wrong way round. rov:registration is a sub property of the more general rov:identifier. I think the text is correct, no?
>> 
>> ?a rov:registration ?b implies ?a adms:identifier ?b. One cannot use rov:registration without also implicitly asserting the rov:identifier relationship.
>> 
>> This is like saying: “Don't type a resource as an Agent if it actually is a Person.” You can't do it -- typing something as a Person also types it as an Agent.
> 
> Phil, I think that specifying that "?a adms:identifier ?b" should not
> be asserted (explicitly, it has to get inferred) on top of "?a
> rov:registration ?b" is an unnecessary and potentially harmful
> condition. In many situations the flow of code and information might
> be such that "?a adms:identifier ?b" is asserted first and only later
> is it discovered that also "?a rov:registration ?b"; retracting a
> statement can be a major issue in many RDF stores, especially in the
> presense of forward-chaining reasoning. Thus, I think that the explict
> statements:
>  ?a adms:identifier ?b ; rov:registration ?b .
> although superfluous, should be perfectly happy to co-exist.
> 
> Richard, I think that "is available" is too weak a wording; the
> intention is to force authors to use rov:registration where it is
> known to hold between ?a and ?b. A situation where one always uses
> adms:identifier (for whatever reason) should be made non-conformant;
> although, as you already pointed out, it is obviously correct as per
> the semantics of rdfs:subPropertyOf .
> 
> Since adms:identifier is a foreign term and there is the general
> clause that "[a conforming data interchange] does not use terms from
> other vocabularies instead of ones defined in this vocabulary that
> could reasonably be used", isn't this enough to make everbody happy?
> 
> It seems to me that this clause is sufficient to make the use of
> rov:registration obligatory in all situations where it is applicable
> and the addition of adms:identifier admissible even where superfuous.
> 
> My suggestion is that the wording is changed in a way that it does not
> regulate, but rather reiterates or reminds the conformance requirement
> that rov:registration must be asserted where applicable and that only
> asserting an adms:identifier statement with a subject-object pair that
> is in the extension of both properties is non-conformant.
> 
> I would further point out that the wording should be such that it does
> not make non-conformant situations where rov:registration is inferred
> rather than explict. Eg., if I define a subproperty of
> rov:registration that is restricted to range over VAT numbers, I can
> only expect that an instantiation where only my subproperty is
> explictly asserted is conformant with ROV.
> 
> Best,
> Stasinos
>

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 10:19:49 UTC