SV: Questions about TBX to RDF handling

Q1: So I should use http://tbx2rdf.lider-project.eu/tbx# ? (Now dereferenceable, good!)

Q2: I found an OWL file at https://github.com/cimiano/tbx2rdf/blob/master/ontology/tbx.owl


Q3 (new): I just read in http://www.ttt.org/oscarStandards/tbx/tbx_oscar.pdf that

Any enclosed markup shall have any start-tag characters ("<") or ampersands (&) converted into their respective entities, &lt; and &amp; (8.6.2)

but if I do that in my example

          <descrip type="definition">kommersiell &lt;hi>verksamhet&lt;/hi> som drivs under ordnade former</descrip>

it breaks your conversion service (http://tbx2rdf.lider-project.eu/converter/tbx2rdf.html, “An ERROR has happened”).

Regards,
Peter Svanberg


Från: johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] För John McCrae
Skickat: den 2 oktober 2015 15:16
Till: Peter Svanberg
Kopia: public-bpmlod@w3.org
Ämne: Re: Questions about TBX to RDF handling



On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Peter Svanberg <Peter.Svanberg@tnc.se<mailto:Peter.Svanberg@tnc.se>> wrote:

Extra question 1: How should these best practice reports be interpreted? As (a) “Please do it this way, try to use our tbx vocabulary/ontology …” or (b) “Here is some tips on how it could be done, but adjust to your needs and context.”?
Best practices are guides that you should follow, but are not as prescriptive as a standard or recommendation. As such, it is likely that for a particular case there may need to be some extension, e.g., defining extra properties, but for the most part it is prefered to follow the best practices.

Extra question 2: In your file tbx.owl you define both a skos/core#TerminologicalConcept (not present in the SKOS spec.) and (it’s subclass) tbx.owl#TerminologicalConcept, how come?
That seems wrong, I have fixed it.

Where did you get tbx.owl from by the way? It seems it was not available at the address it should have been at, namely http://tbx2rdf.lider-project.eu/tbx


Regards,
John