W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > June 2012

Re: RDFS schema files

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:07:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUFy+PWYy8x4fbS5oOAa8C+Zk7ygmmNi_tV_gSqJWBXWsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi Stian,

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> However some facts stated in the specification is not reflected in the
> schema, for instance:
> oa:annotator    Relationship     [subProperty of dcterms:creator]
> oa:annotated    Property        [subProperty of dcterms:created]
> oa:generator    Relationship    [subProperty of dcterms:publisher]
> oa:generated    Property        [subProperty of dcterms:issued]
> OK, so I might not think that these subproperties are always a good
> match - but if we say so in the specification, then why should not the
> RDFS schema also reflect this with rdfs:subPropertyOf ?

You caught my intentional (honestly!) mistake :)

Indeed, these aren't great matches and Paolo and I have discussed
changing to making them subProperties of the W3C provenance terms
prov:wasAttributedTo and prov:generatedAtTime

If there's no objections from the group, we'll go ahead and make this change.

> The use of RDFS without any OWL means it is very difficult to see if
> something is an object property or data property, and it all comes out
> as "annotation properties" in Protege unless the rdfs:range has been
> given.

I'm happy to add the OWL types if people agree this would be useful.
To date my approach has been to use OWL as minimally as possible based
on previous pushback to it, but if it's not going to confuse either
people or software systems, then I don't see the issue.


Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 15:07:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:00 UTC