Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions

I was hoping that the Linked Open Vocabulary project could help answer 
this as they provide states on property use across over 550 vocabs. 
However, their search system is broken.

So instead I looked at the list of W3C vocabularies,[1] and only one 
(something called "Earl") did not use rdfs:isDefinedBy. All of the 
others did, and that list is:

SKOS, DataCube, DCAT, ORG, vCARD, ADMS, REORG

I looked at the Open Annotation vocabulary,[2] which I know is close to 
being completed, and it, too, uses rdfs:isDefinedBy.

I think this shows that this *is* a W3C best practice.

kc
[1] https://www.w3.org/standards/techs/rdfvocabs#w3c_all
[2] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/

On 1/24/16 4:07 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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 can’t 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
> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:45 PM
> To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>"
> <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions
> Resent-From: <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> <mailto: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.

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 04:47:46 UTC