Re: Labels separate from localnames (Was: Best Practice for Renaming OWL Vocabulary Elements

Hi Nathan, Kingsley:
My point is that I want anybody using any ontology / annotation tool to immediately spot the cardinality recommendation. rdfs:label is displayed by all / most tools. if I hide it in rdfs:comment, it is not as accessible. Defining an owl:AnnotationProperty will be completely invisible in most tools.

I actually think that six extra characters (n..m) for the property labels should not really irritate a human-reader when faced with a "raw data view". Again, any data that includes e.g. intermediate nodes for higher arity relationships will look pretty much machine-code style without context-dependent rendering/consolidation.

As for the classes, I think we are all in agreement now, e.g.

    URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#DeliveryChargeSpecification
    rdfs:label Delivery charge specification

For the pre-defined individuals, I think that the class name as additional context does more good than harm:

    URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#MasterCard
    rdfs:label MasterCard (payment method)

So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality info in the label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is the better choice as compared to the alternatives.

It is also easy to create graph of cleansed rdfs:labels for goodrelations based on a simple regex.

Martin




On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Nathan wrote:

> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 4/22/11 7:36 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>> See replies inline ;-)
>>>> Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that the rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web developers sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a method should look like a piece of code because it is addressed to programmers. I refuse to believe that Web developers understand better pseudo code than natural language.
>>> I will finally give in to use English spacing and capitalization for rdfs:labels in GoodRelations, e.g. use
>>> 
>>>    "Business entity"@en for gr:BusinessEntity etc.
>>> 
>>> But I will keep the cardinality recommendation in the rdfs:label of properties, e.g.
>>> 
>>>     serial number (0..*) for gr:serialNumber
>> Why not move that to rdfs:comment? 
> 
> +1 seems more like a comment or a description from where I'm standing too, rather than a label.
>

Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 16:19:26 UTC