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: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:35:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4DB1BC54.30603@elbklang.net>
To: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Martin,

On 4/22/2011 6:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> 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.

I really don't understand why you need this cardinality description in a 
label of a universal. If a developer should get informed about such 
axioms on a term, then a documentation is a good place for this kind of 
For example, my SpecGen v6 fork [1,2] transforms such information 
directly from an RDF graph into a readable HTML documentation that 
includes RDFa as well, i.e., you even can get the full RDF graph out of 
an HTML+RDFa serialized specification documentation. A nice showcase 
term that illustrates the defined restrictions that are set on this 
universal is olo:Slot [3].



[2] http://smiy.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/smiy/specgen/trunk/ (this 
version is up-to-date)
[3] http://purl.org/ontology/olo/core#Slot
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 17:35:43 UTC

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