Dear all: We use rdfs:isDefinedBy in all of our vocabularies (*) for linking between the conceptual elements and their specification. Now, there is a subtle question: Let's assume we have an ontology with the main URI http://purl.org/vso/ns All conceptual elements are defined as hash fragment URIs (URI references), e.g. http://purl.org/vso/ns#Bike The ontology itself (the instance of owl:Ontology) has the URI http://purl.org/vso/ns# <http://purl.org/vso/ns#> a owl:Ontology ; owl:imports <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1> ; dc:title "VSO: The Vehicle Sales Ontology for Semantic Web-based E-Commerce"@en . So we have two URIs for the ontology: 1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# for the ontology as an abstract artefact 2. http://purl.org/vso/ns for the syntactical representation of the ontology (its serialization) Shall the rdfs:isDefinedBy statements refer to #1 or #2 ? #1 vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ; rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ; rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/vso/ns#> . <=========== #2 vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ; rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ; rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ; rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/vso/ns> . <=========== I had assumed they shall refer to #1, but that caused some debate within our group ;-) Opinions? Best MartinReceived on Thursday, 30 September 2010 07:07:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:29 UTC