W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:13:23 +0200
Message-ID: <l2hcf8107641004060713me306c350sf8c88f504b01237a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Niklas,
>
> Nice!
>
> I would once again suggest adding local "owl:equivalentProperty" assertions
> which enables a reasoner to treat the IANA URIs as synonyms. This is in line
> with what I like to call the: owl:shameAs pattern :-)
>
> Kingsley

Hi Kingsley,

thanks!

Yes, I think that'd be good. But my sketch already describes the IANA
URI:s directly (by, unsolicitedly, using
@xml:base="http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/"), so *if* that
RDF (or preferably Michael's richer and RDFa-based one) were official,
we wouldn't need that, right? (As those would be self-referential
statements..)

Otherwise, if we were to mint our own ("community official") URI:s for
each of these properties, I'd agree that owl:equivalentProperty should
definitely be there..

.. Well, unless it would be decided in the future that values in
@rel:s at least in Atom are to be viewed as *indirect* references to
relations via a document (akin to e.g. foaf:interest). Of course,
that's not the case in XHTML+RDFa, but for the default names in @rel:s
there the IANA URI:s aren't used (we have the
<http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#>-based ones instead).

So to nail down the definitions of (the nature of) the things the IANA
relation URI:s identify, we'd either have to make it clear that they
*are* relations (i.e. properties) in the RDF sense (and
object-properties in the OWL sense), or that they're not. If it's
undefined, we still can't really make any statements about what they
are, even if we make up our own properties based on how we view them.
(Well maybe, if it was declared that their precise meaning will be
"perpetually undefined".)

So if they (the URI:s) are (direct references to relations), it'd be
wonderful to have IANA publish some kind of RDF discoverable via [1]
to make that clear.

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 14:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:26 UTC