- 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 canąt 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