W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2012

Re: referencing a concept scheme as the code list of some referrer's property

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:40:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5035EC6C.2040306@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>, sandro@w3.org, Till Schulte-Coerne <till.schulte-coerne@innoq.com>
[Apologies for continuing the cross-posting]

A pattern of using sub-classes of skos:Concept to denote a group of 
concepts (and thus be able to use rdfs:range in associated ontologies) 
is a good one. It is recommended best practice in data.gov.uk linked 
data work, for example.

This does not remove the value of having an explicit representation of a 
concept scheme available if you wish to use it. It gives a place to 
attach scheme level metadata such as license information. While you 
*can* attach such information to an owl:Class you end up having to use 
owl:AnnotationProperties which causes its own problems (though less so 
in OWL 2). Having an explicit concept scheme also signals intention.

So while you certainly could get away with a leaner skos with no 
skos:ConceptScheme I think the spec is stronger for having it and, like 
with any spec, you adopt best practice patterns to suit your 
circumstances and preferences.

> skos:ConceptScheme priotises domain conventions over common and shared
> (better: to be shared) RDFS/OWL patterns.

Disagree. The notion of an explicit collection is a common RDFS/OWL 
pattern and indeed the Linked Data Platform work seems to be partly 
about strengthening that.

> I found something similar in the Data Structure Definition of Data
> Cubes. Dave (cc) will understand, as we had some discussion about this
> topic ;-)

Not wishing to repeat that discussion let me just summarize that Data 
Structure Definitions have clear value, that has been demonstrated in 
practice separate from a desire to be compatible with SDMX. The fact 
that is compatible with the way people in that domain think about the 
problem doesn't of itself make it a bad thing :)

> Dave et al. is conciliatory with SDMX and weakens RDFS/OWL by this.

Disagree. Borrowing a modelling pattern from some domain doesn't weaken 
RDFS/OWL.

Dave
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 08:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:42 UTC