W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > August 2018

Re: [dxwg] Use of dct:type with both Class and Concept

From: Jakub Klímek via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:31:10 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-416197179-1535369468-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@dr-shorthair Yes, I am always for a stricter version. It is actually the use of `dct:type` with `skos:Concept`s which has the (completely unintentional) side effects.

@kcoyle Thanks for the heads up. Nevertheless, since the loosening of `dcterms` `rdfs:range`s is still in the discussion phase, it can go either way. I personally would be against any loosening, which only allows more mess to be created and makes any reasonable application on top of such data complicated (too many options).

Regarding TopBraid behaviour, this only emphasizes what can happen when theses side effects are ignored. My exploration query use case is another one.

I strongly believe that inference is not something we can ignore because "it can be turned off if it causes problems". It needs to be taken into account as a natural consequence of using RDF and RDFS. It is quite simple really. We need to start from a use case. The use case is that we want to classify datasets with `skos:Concept`s. That is fine, but the property `dcterms:type` is not a good fit for this, because it has a range of `rdfs:Class`, which would make all used concepts classes, which is something unintended. Therefore, we need another property without such side effects.

@rob-metalinkage I think that placing exploratory queries on unknown endpoints is perfectly legal, and it is in fact the only way of determining that is stored inside - leveraging vocabulary reuse and inferencing (more on that topic in our [Survey of Tools for Linked Data Consumption](http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/survey-tools-linked-data-consumption-1) btw). I admit I am a bit lost in your extensive argumentation above, but the situation often is that you have a URL of some foreign SPARQL endpoint and you want to see (automatically) at least something about what is inside - the contract therefore is "here is a SPARQL endpoint, do your best with SPARQL".

GitHub Notification of comment by jakubklimek
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/314#issuecomment-416197179 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 27 August 2018 11:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:05 UTC