W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Labels separate from localnames (Was: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:30:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4DB1AD17.6000104@openlinksw.com>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: nathan@webr3.org, public-lod@w3.org
On 4/22/11 12:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> Hi Nathan, Kingsley:
> My point is that I want anybody using any ontology / annotation tool to immediately spot the cardinality recommendation. rdfs:label is displayed by all / most tools.

Yes, but time to stop accepting in appropriate patterns :-)

rdfs:comment exists for a reason. Linked Data is better that OS and 
programming lang. locked code, thus we have a massive opportunity to 
also finally make "comments" useful etc..

>   if I hide it in rdfs:comment, it is not as accessible. Defining an owl:AnnotationProperty will be completely invisible in most tools.

Okay, so make gr:label, then place in an owl:equivalentProperty relation 
with rdfs:label. Then via its rdfs:comment value expose a distilled 
version of this conversation :-)

> I actually think that six extra characters (n..m) for the property labels should not really irritate a human-reader when faced with a "raw data view". Again, any data that includes e.g. intermediate nodes for higher arity relationships will look pretty much machine-code style without context-dependent rendering/consolidation.
> As for the classes, I think we are all in agreement now, e.g.
>      URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#DeliveryChargeSpecification
>      rdfs:label Delivery charge specification
> For the pre-defined individuals, I think that the class name as additional context does more good than harm:
>      URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#MasterCard
>      rdfs:label MasterCard (payment method)
> So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality info in the label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is the better choice as compared to the alternatives.

If you add gr:label to GoodRelations we're set :-)
> It is also easy to create graph of cleansed rdfs:labels for goodrelations based on a simple regex.

Not good. We want to keep the logic in the data, via triples. Thus, 
traditional coding and string manipulation heuristics (regex and 
friends) -- .

> Martin
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 4/22/11 7:36 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>>> See replies inline ;-)
>>>>> Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that the rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web developers sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a method should look like a piece of code because it is addressed to programmers. I refuse to believe that Web developers understand better pseudo code than natural language.
>>>> I will finally give in to use English spacing and capitalization for rdfs:labels in GoodRelations, e.g. use
>>>>     "Business entity"@en for gr:BusinessEntity etc.
>>>> But I will keep the cardinality recommendation in the rdfs:label of properties, e.g.
>>>>      serial number (0..*) for gr:serialNumber
>>> Why not move that to rdfs:comment?
>> +1 seems more like a comment or a description from where I'm standing too, rather than a label.



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 16:30:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:13 UTC