- From: Brian Manley <brian.manley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:19:00 -0700
- To: Bernhard Schandl <bernhard.schandl@univie.ac.at>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org, public-semweb-ui@w3.org
I think you're "better" graphic has an extra rdf:domain where an rdf:range should be. Brian On Jun 25, 2009, at 2:59 AM, Bernhard Schandl wrote: > Hi, > > a couple of times now I ran into misunderstandings by students > regarding a common visualization style of property domain/range > relationships in ontologies. Actually, it is quite common to draw > diagrams of ontologies in a style similar to ER diagrams, where > classes are represented as ellipses, and properties that have these > classes as domain/range are represented as arcs between these > ellipses (e.g. [1], which is meant to describe the domain and range > for foaf:holdsAccount). > > However many "newbies" to RDF and ontologies are confused by this, > because the triple > > foaf:Agent foaf:holdsAccount foaf:OnlineAccount . > > is actually not contained in the ontology. It's hard to explain them > the difference between this way of representing ontologies and the > graphical representation of the actual triples. Thus I ask everyone > to reconsider the way you visualize ontologies in publications, > tutorials, etc. to make them consistent with the "normal" way of > graphical RDF notation. > > [1] <http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/schandl/2009/06/domain+range_bad.png> > [2] <http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/schandl/2009/06/domain+range_better.png > > > > Best, > Bernhard > >
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 10:19:42 UTC