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 16:45:29 +0200
Message-ID: <u2ycf8107641004060745uabca794eu379b8b39e1d671c@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>

2010/4/6 Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>:
> 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. :-)

absolutely. But do you think we should describe and use the IANA URI:s
directly as properties, or that we need to mint new URI:s for them?
The location of the document(s) containing these descriptions may very
well be unreachable from iana.org for now (albeit less than ideal),
but if we need to mint new ones, we cannot really say the iana.org
ones are properties, right*? Since if they are, we should just use

> Got to be fast :-)

True. And durable. ;)

Best regards,

[*] =  Excluding owl:equivalentProperty as well since it's range is
rdf:Property (via rdfs:subPropertyOf).

>> [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 14:46:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:04 UTC