- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:07:33 -0500
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <D2CACF0C.8362A%irene@topquadrant.com>
There is no harm in using rdfs:isDefinedBy and may be some value in it. I am not totally sure what it is though. In practice, it is very rarely used for instances. Because it is not practical, I guess, to always carry this extra triple. It is sometimes used for schemas, but certainly far from universally used. So, from the software perspective, it can¹t be relied on unless the person who writes software has full control over what schemas they use and how they look like. As for living with other vocabularies in a triple store, this wouldn't require rdfs:isDefinedBy. The best practice is to have each vocabulary as a separate named graph and then one could always query for its content in SPARQL using FROM or FROM GRAPH. Irene Polikoff, CEO TopQuadrant, Inc. www.topquadrant.com <http://www.topquadrant.com/> Technology providers making enterprise information meaningful Blogs ‹ http://www.topquadrant.com/the-semantic-ecosystems-journal/, http://www.topquadrant.com/composing-the-semantic-web/ LinkedIn ‹ https://www.linkedin.com/company/topquadrant Twitter - https://twitter.com/topquadrant From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> Date: Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:45 PM To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions Resent-From: <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:46:09 +0000 > No, rdfs:isDefinedBy is the way to link an RDF term with its ontology. > My XSLT relies on that. It also lets vocab information live in a > triple store with other vocabs. You can then get all the terms for a > given vocab using a SPARQL query. Again, I don't like carrying around extra triples just for the sake of a particular XSLT implementation. These triples are trivial to auto-generate at any point in time. Having said this, for the purpose of making progress I will try to edit them in (although I expect this to be error-prone). Better would be to leave them out for now and put them back in on the day prior to publication.
Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 00:08:11 UTC