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

Re: rdfs:Schema

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:02:39 -0400
Message-ID: <503E20FF.4060400@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 8/29/12 10:00 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2012-08-29, at 14:02, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 29 August 2012, Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>>     On 2012-08-29, at 13:26, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Wednesday, 29 August 2012, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hello!
>>>
>>>         A colleague of mine was writing a specification generation
>>>         software for web ontologies recently, and as part of his
>>>         testing on multiple RDFS vocabularies, noticed that most of
>>>         them use the OWL namespace just for its owl:Ontology class,
>>>         to describe the vocabulary itself.
>>>
>>>         Would it make sense to create a new rdfs:Schema class, to
>>>         make it simpler for people to create basic vocabularies,
>>>         without having to involve OWL at all?
>>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks for the suggestion. I would advise against this:
>>>
>>>     1. There are lots of bits of OWL that it is good to use, even if
>>>     you don't buy the whole DL vision. For example, knowing about
>>>     class disjointness, property inverses, FPs and IFPs. Having the
>>>     OWL 'Ontology' class can serve as a gateway drug to these useful
>>>     extras.
>>>
>>>     2. You push work onto consumers; everyone who previously queried
>>>     for owl: Ontology would now have to check for rdfs: Schema too.
>>>
>>>     3. Are there any members of one of these classes that are not
>>>     also in the other? If yes, I fear this will confuse. If no, then
>>>     this is purely cosmetics.
>>
>>     +1
>>
>>>     4. Both owl: and rdfs: are pre-declared prefixes in the rdfa 1.1
>>>     'initial context', and this addresses most of the cosmetic
>>>     concern. New schemas ought to be written in rdfa imho.
>>
>>     That made me double-take, but I've not seen a schema written in
>>     RDFa to see how legible that can be.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
>>
>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
>
> [sorry, this is quite off-topic]
>
> That's not bad at all, but I think I prefer holding the master in 
> Turtle and rendering it with some RDF→HTML tech à la 
> http://lv2plug.in/ns/lv2core/

+1

>
> - Steve
>
> -- 
> Steve Harris, CTO
> Garlik, a part of Experian
> +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
> Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, 
> NG80 1ZZ
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 14:03:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC