- From: Tim rdf <timrdf@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:29:40 -0400
- To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <80995bcd0906272229y67a5fe4ay468d6dead6a3ea14@mail.gmail.com>
I think I remember hearing at SemTech the other week that rdfs:isDefinedBy has fallen out of favor. I'm not sure if that is because people just have not adopted it or because the working group nudged us not to use it. I guess I'll try to answer your question with another question. What are the variety of uses for rdfs:isDefinedBy according to 1) as intended, and 2) in practice? The answers that I know of: * Provide a mechanism for an automated agent to retrieve the ontology for a term that it doesn't know (enough) about. * Provide a triple-based string comparison in a query over terms (instead of performing a string regex in a FILTER to limit only predicates within a certain namespace, simply adding another triple in a query ( $subject $p $o .. $p rdfs:isDefinedBy myns: ) . That's all I have... Regards, Tim Lebo On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>wrote: > Hello, > > When writing OWL ontologies in RDF syntaxes it is generally a good practice > to explicitly relate the defined terms (i.e. classes, properties and > individuals) back to the ontology through the property "rdfs:isDefinedBy". > In OWL 2 with the introduction of owl:versionIRI there are two options now: > > - Relate the terms to the ontology IRI > - Relate the terms to the version IRI > > I wonder if the working group wishes to state any preference or give advice > on which option to choose? > > Regards, > Simon > >
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 11:51:38 UTC