W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

RE: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

From: Gong Cheng <gcheng@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:55:29 +0800
Message-ID: <489573727.13107@seu.edu.cn>
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>, "'public-lod'" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501cb8279$a72f9c00$f58ed400$@edu.cn>
Falcons is using <?p, rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:label> to discover label-like
properties.
But it is OK to remove <foaf:name, rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:label> because
we have hard-coded foaf:name as a label-like property.

Cheers,
Gong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Dan
> Brickley
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:09 PM
> To: foaf-dev Friend of a; public-lod
> Subject: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
rdfs:label?
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple
> 
>  foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .
> 
> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.
> 
> So for now, pure fact-finding. I would like to know if anyone is
> actively using this triple, eg. for Linked Data browsers. If we can
> avoid this degenerating into a thread about the merits or otherwise of
> description logic, I would be hugely grateful.
> 
> So -
> 
> 1. do you have code / applications that checks to see if a property is
> "rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label" ?
> 2. do you have any scope to change this behaviour (eg. it's a web
> service under your control, rather than shipping desktop software )
> 3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
> other idioms instead (or rather, as well).
> 4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
> rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
> schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Dan
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 14:56:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC