W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2012

Re: referencing a concept scheme as the code list of some referrer's property

From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:22:46 +0200
Message-ID: <5035F666.4060604@innoq.com>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: public-esw-thes@w3.org, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>, sandro@w3.org, Till Schulte-Coerne <till.schulte-coerne@innoq.com>
Am 23.08.2012 10:40, schrieb Dave Reynolds:
> [Apologies for continuing the cross-posting]
> A pattern of using sub-classes of skos:Concept to denote a group of
> concepts (and thus be able to use rdfs:range in associated ontologies)
> is a good one. It is recommended best practice in data.gov.uk linked
> data work, for example.
Fine. Why then does Data Cube not make use of this?
Can you give a link to this recommended best practice?
> This does not remove the value of having an explicit representation of
> a concept scheme available if you wish to use it. It gives a place to
> attach scheme level metadata such as license information. While you
> *can* attach such information to an owl:Class you end up having to use
> owl:AnnotationProperties which causes its own problems (though less so
> in OWL 2). Having an explicit concept scheme also signals intention.

My notion is that defining subclasses of skos:Concept expresses that you
want to create a concept scheme.
Tons of metadata properties (such as skos:pref/altLable or note) do not
define any expicit domain, so the domain is rdfs:Resource. Why not
attach them to a rdfs:Class or owl:Class, which are subclasses of

Btw, license information should be given in the DCAT/VoID description
and nowhere else. Let's get rid of all such redunancy. Even between DCAT
and VoID.

> So while you certainly could get away with a leaner skos with no
> skos:ConceptScheme I think the spec is stronger for having it and,
> like with any spec, you adopt best practice patterns to suit your
> circumstances and preferences.
In my response to Simon I have recommended one sentence for human
readers: "The domain specific notion of a concept scheme is expressed by
subclasses of skos:Concept in RDF."

>> skos:ConceptScheme priotises domain conventions over common and shared
>> (better: to be shared) RDFS/OWL patterns.
> Disagree. The notion of an explicit collection is a common RDFS/OWL
> pattern and indeed the Linked Data Platform work seems to be partly
> about strengthening that.

Bad habits do not become a good practise just by being common ;-)

We also have skos:Collection, and I like this, as it adds structural
freedom: collections of concepts may be nested like a file system.
skos:ConceptScheme does not add any structural power.

>> I found something similar in the Data Structure Definition of Data
>> Cubes. Dave (cc) will understand, as we had some discussion about this
>> topic ;-)
> Not wishing to repeat that discussion ...
Right. I hate redundancy.

Thanks for the contribution, I respect you work, and I am not so sure
about DSDs as I am about concept schemes.
I've never heard about SDMX before I read the Data Cube specs.
It may take some time for me to find a well-founded position about SDMX
DSDs in RDF.


Thomas Bandholtz
Principal Consultant

innoQ Deutschland GmbH
Krischerstr. 100, 
D-40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany
+49 178 4049387

http://innoq.com/de/themen/linked-data (German)
https://github.com/innoq/iqvoc/wiki/Linked-Data (English)
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 09:23:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:30 UTC