Re: Semantics of the schema.org data model (for integration with RDFS, OWL, etc.)

Hi Dan,

sorry for getting back to this so late, but, regarding my question on 
how to formalise the semantics of the schema.org data model:

2012-08-29 18:33 Dan Brickley:
> Interesting. Well, more or less "what you see is what you get". We
> don't have any formal axioms etc., beyond basic type hierarchy. The
> notions of range and domain we use are pretty soft too. If you find
> opportunities for formalization (such as the lowPrice example), it
> would be interesting to see those. But for now, I think it's best to
> treat schema.org's schema as a pretty simple RDF vocabulary. So
> schema.org extensions would also just be treated as  RDF/S or perhaps
> OWL. The schema.org search engines don't claim to do anything with 3rd
> party vocabularies that extend schema.org, but others are always
> welcome to make new uses of the vocabulary.

Thanks for this encouraging feedback – so we will simply do it "our 
way", let this list know when we're done, and of course we won't assume 
that any search engine relies on such a formal semantics.

BTW I should also thank Gregg for the mail at 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012Aug/0066.html>, 
as it made me aware that range/domain in schema.org doesn't have the 
RDFS intersection semantics, but a union semantics.

In our approach we will therefore most likely model this using OWL plus 
maybe alternatively first-order logic (where it is possibly more 
intuitive to write down).

Cheers,

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Lange, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham
http://cs.bham.ac.uk/~langec, Skype duke4701

→ Building & Exploring Web Based Environments.  Seville, Spain, 27 Jan–
   1 Feb 2013.  Deadline 22 Sep. 
http://iaria.org/conferences2013/WEB13.html

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 15:22:17 UTC