Re: Official OWL version outdated

I have posted an up to date OWL version of schema.org at

     http://topbraid.org/schema/

which follows different OWL encoding conventions than the other RDF/OWL 
version(s) that I have come across. The page above explains these 
conventions and their motivation.

Feedback appreciated - this is just a first version (with the RDFa file 
as its starting point).

Thanks,
Holger


On 5/8/2013 11:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 5/7/13 9:22 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> On 5/8/2013 10:44, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>
>>>     Looking at the OWL version of schema.org <http://schema.org> at
>>>
>>>     http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl
>>>
>>>     I notice that this seems to be a rather old version, while the
>>>     RDFa version
>>>
>>>     http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
>>>
>>>     seems to be more recent. (When) will the OWL version be fixed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it useful? what do you prefer? The use of OWL is pretty weak 
>>> since we're so flexible.
>>
>> It's not very useful in its current form, yet I believe it can be 
>> made very useful with a few changes. You guys are probably wasting an 
>> opportunity to get more "semantic web" people on board. My guess is 
>> that most OWL people look at both prominent online versions (the 
>> official one and the one of rdfs.org) and walk away because they are 
>> rather unusable.
>>
>> Specifically, I would do the following transformations (and as an 
>> exercise I have actually implemented the required SPARQL updates 
>> based on the current OWL file):
>>
>> - Clean up the owl:unionOfs with one member
>> - Convert any usage of schema.org datatypes with xsd ones
>> - Convert rdfs:range (Number or String) to xsd:float
>>
>> Along with a simple instance data converter, the ontology could be 
>> changed to
>> - Replace schema:Thing with owl:Thing
>> - Replace schema:name with rdfs:label
>> - Replace schema:description with rdfs:comment
>> - Delete schema:url (as it's basically the URI of the subject)
>>
>> Manual clean up should
>> - Add cardinality restrictions
>> - Declare owl:inverseOf relationships
>> - Mark outdated properties (such as the plural forms) as owl:deprecated.
>>
>> Could this info be made available anywhere in machine readable form? 
>> I am pretty sure not only the RDF/OWL mapping could use this info.
>>
>>>
>>> Does rdf/xml vs rdfa (or json-ld etc) matter to you? What about the 
>>> choice of all in one big file vs per-term?
>>
>> It would be good to be able to owl:import something. The RDFa version 
>> does some things better than the OWL version, but not everything is 
>> perfect: properties with multiple rdfs:domains should use owl:unionOf 
>> (I guess RDFa has trouble representing this?).
>>
>> And of course why not have the URIs dereferencable as true linked 
>> data... This should be a trivial feature to add for an organization 
>> that large. Even if just to show that the people behind schema.org do 
>> care about the semantic web community.
>>
>> I am tempted to create our own copy based on the distilled RDFa 
>> version on some topbraid.org address because I believe there is much 
>> more potential here. 
>
> Yes, there is and I encourage you to crack on if you have the time. 
> Basically, make your tweak and then just publish the revised document 
> at URL.
>
>> One specific use case is that many of our customers build their own 
>> ontologies with concepts that are reinvented all the time - Person, 
>> Address etc. While our tooling is generic and can work with any 
>> ontology, it would be better to ship our product with some starter 
>> ontology and I believe schema.org could become the foundation of 
>> this. For this starter ontology, we would define some customized 
>> forms and views, e.g. so that addresses show street address above 
>> postal code etc. We could also define some out of the box web 
>> services with typical queries, reports etc. Clearly there are other 
>> product ideas in this space that the schema.org effort could also 
>> benefit of. The more alignment of data the better for everyone. Even 
>> if RDFa and Microdata will remain the vehicles of distributing 
>> schema.org instance data, these web pages may be generated by a 
>> triple store.
>
> Not may, they will, and have been :-)
>
>>
>> Sorry if this is repeating some discussions that have already 
>> happened elsewhere... I am trying to catch up.
>>
>> HTH
>> Holger
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
> 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
>
>
>
>