W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: htmldata-ISSUE-1 (Microdata Vocabulary): Vocabulary specific parsing for Microdata

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:36:45 +0200
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FC1E42AF-2D48-4917-BFE8-50AF88F75D48@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, all:
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> (Martin, an explicit question to you below)
>> My preference would be option 3, where there is a single way to parse, without reference to vocabulary specifics. This would be in direct contrast with the HTML spec, but more in lines of the needs of RDF tool chains.
> Yes, I see. I would like to see a use case where this does not work (and, from the top of my head, I do not see any).
> Except that (hence my explicit cc to Martin): let us suppose that, eventually, the GR terms will be incorporated into schema.org. What this means is that all GR terms will be in the schema.org/ namespace, but that also means that a microdata->RDF mapping would produce the GR terms as 
> http://schema.org/Blah
> which is different than the current terms. Martin, what are your plans with the old URI-s in that situation?

there is not yet a decision made, but one likely approach is to add some, most, or all GoodRelations properties to matching schema.org classes. However, this does not mean that the main namespace for GoodRelations changes. It just means that you can use the respective GoodRelations elements also within the schema.org namespace and with local names inside the respective schema.org itemtype.

My current plan is to include proper alignment axioms to at least the OWL version of GoodRelations so that any client that

- consumes the respective data in an RDF environment,
- supports at least basic reasoning for rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subpropertyOf, owl:equivalentProperty, owl:equivalentClass, and owl:sameAs for simple (i.e. atomic) class definitions (no fancy DL reasoning needed)

will work with the same SPARQL queries, no matter whether the annotations are in RDFa or Microdata, from the GoodRelations namespace or from schema.org shortcuts.

So basically you will have three cases:

a) GoodRelations markup in RDFa
b) GoodRelations markup in Microdata
c) GoodRelations properties, classes, or individuals using the schema.org aliases in Microdata syntax.

All three should eventually match to the same queries.

So for example,


may also become a property for 


using the local name 

Using the standard algorithms, you will likely get the URI


for this.

But since the GoodRelations OWL specification will state 

@prefix gr: <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#>.
@prefix schema: <http://schema.org/> .

schema:hasDUNS a owl:DatatypeProperty .
# we will NOT duplicate the other aspects of the property definition here; this is just for the sake of OWL DL compatibility.

schema:hasDUNS owl:equivalentProperty gr:hasDUNS. ,

a query using schema:hasDUNS will return the same results as a query using gr:hasDUNS.

Note 1: For us, it is most important that you can consume (!) the data using one single vocabulary, i.e. the official GoodRelations identifiers. In many cases, the mapping will work bidirectionally, but that is not a requirement.
Note 2: The schema.org OWL file may or may not include similar alignment axioms to GoodRelations.
Note 3: The domain of gr:hasDUNS will also include the matching schema.org classes via owl:unionOf, btw.


Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 08:37:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:25 UTC