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

Re: How should I "link" a predicate?

From: Kurt J <kurtjx@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:33:26 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=5EQw3oUt-f+UV9fSzeSFNBe9PsKsnpEJmVHrr@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> <snip>
> On 19 Aug 2010, at 16:30, Paul Houle wrote:
>
>>      I'm planning to define a few predicates because I think existing predicates don't exactly express what I'm trying to say.
>>
>>      Since a predicate is a URI,  there's the question of "What should be served up at the the URI if somebody (a) types it into the browser,  or (b) looks at it with a semweb client?"
>>
>>      What's the best thing to do here.  It might be lame,  but I'm thinking about making the predicate URL do a 301 redirect to a CMS page that has a human-readable description of the predicate.
>>
>>      I suppose that a predicate URL page could also have some RDF assertions on it about the predicate,  for instance,  a collection of OWL assertions about it could be useful...  However,  beyond that,  I don't think the state of the art in upper ontologies is good enough that we can really make a machine readable definition of what a predicate means at this time.
>>
>>     For the predicate that I need most immediately,  there's the issue that there are optional OWL statements that could be asserted about it that would provide an interpretation that some people would accept some of the time -- however,  I wouldn't be coining this predicate if I thought this interpretation was 100% correct.  In this case,  I think the best I can do is make a human-readable assertion that
>>
>> "You could put this assertion about my predicate in your OWL engine if you wish"
>>
>>     and leave it at that.
>>
>>     Any thoughts?
>
> There are some best practises to writing and and publishing RDF vocabs. You can find them on the W3C site :
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/
>
> I would have a look at how FOAF or some other similar project generate human-readable documentation for their RDF vocabs, I think there is some tool which does it, but I can't recall its name off the top of my head.
>
> Mischa
>
>
>

Hi Paul,

If you only have a few properties to define, you might look at
http://open.vocab.org/ which handles this all quite nicely for you.

For example, I've abused the Music Ontology modeling in the past by
creating my own term to specify the composer associated with a
classical music recording

http://open.vocab.org/docs/composer

(which de-refs to a nice html page in browser or an rdf description w/
appropriate headers all thnx to open.vocab)

-Kurt J
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 22:33:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:28 UTC