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

Re: Using predicates which have no ontology?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <4BBB43A6.1060301@openlinksw.com>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.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 Lindström wrote:
>> 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.
>   
Thing is that we need RDF data representation now, and if we put the 
linked data somewhere (some data space) ASAP we can point to what will 
someday exist in an IANA data space -- the "shameAs" pattern is a 
productive mechanism for letting folks like IANA understand why this is 
so important etc. :-)


Got to be fast :-)
> Best regards,
> Niklas
>
> [1]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/*
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 14:23:04 UTC

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