Re: Wrap up and Discussion of ways to Specify Supported Properties and corresponding Validation Rules for Operations

On 02/05/2014 08:02 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Thomas, could you please add a blank line between what you quote and what
> you write. That would make it easier to parse your mails. Thanks!

Yepp :)

>
> More inline
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:25 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>>> The Schema.org partners are actively discussing to include this
>>> concept (and a few others from Hydra) directly into Schema.org.
>>> See:
>>>
>>>     http://bit.ly/1ik8LNm
>> Well this is not what I consider a sound approach for "inclusion"
>> because they just copy over
>> stuff like with Goodrelations instead referencing referencing them like
>> in usual for ontologies.
> Whether you like it or not, that's how they do it.
>
>
>> Put as offensive question: Why are they not using Hydra if they need a
>> concept like supported property.
> Because using multiple vocabularies is more difficult than using a single
> one (especially with Microdata).
>
>
> [...]
>
>>>     @prefix s: <http://schema.org/> .
>>>
>>>     s:isbn rdf:type owl:Property,
>>>            rdf:type rdf:Property ;
>>>        s:domainIncludes s:Book ;
>>>        s:rangeIncludes s:Text ;
>>>        rdfs:comment "The ISBN of the book."@en ;
>>>        rdfs:label "isbn"@en .
>>>
>>> Is this the information you were looking for? If you look at [2] you
>>> will see what I meant with the reverse-index.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
> http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/convert/detect/turtle/html/http%3A%2F%2Fsc
>>> hema.org%2Fisbn
>>> [2]
> http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/convert/detect/turtle/html/http%3A%2F%2Fsc
>>> hema.org%2FBook
>> Yepp that's at least what the Web page shows up for human users and
>> obviously you can scrape this from
>> the RDFa as you said before. However, I hope that they come up with a
>> OWL which is on par.
> What do you mean by "a OWL"? A single file which contains all this
> information? You should ask for that on public-vocabs@w3.org That's the
> schema.org list.

Yes, I meant an RDFS/OWL document which formally describes the vocab
including _all_ aspects that currently are defined as RDFa annotation on 
their page.
Ok, thanks for the hint.

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 06:03:05 UTC