- From: Martin G. Skjæveland <martige@ifi.uio.no>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:47:09 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
On 24. feb. 2016 14:19, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2016, at 12:32, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> I can confirm that the domain definitions for rr:subject, rr:predicate, rr:object and rr:graph in https://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml.ttl <https://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml.ttl> do not match (or even resemble) the specification. >>> >>> There are numerous other problems with the OWL representation of this namespace document. >>> >>> I’m afraid the document is unfit for purpose and best ignored. >> >> Or, alternatively, the document is updated and changed… > > Yes, this would of course be preferable. > > But there are numerous issues with the current document, so this would be a slightly bigger project. Not knowing what these issues are, would it not be possible to do a first quick fix by removing the causes of the inconsistencies and let the next version just be a mere vocabulary listing? I would be interesting in joining (also) the slightly bigger project of making a richer version of the ontology. Martin > Is it still known how the document was produced? There are HTML+RDFa, Turtle and RDF/XML variants (and possibly others?). Which one is the master copy? What toolchain was used to produce the others? > > Richard > > > > >> >> The point is: while it is not possible to change a file on /TR, I do not see any problem changing the namespace document in case there is a documented bug. >> >> Ivan >> >> >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>>> On 24 Feb 2016, at 11:08, Martin G. Skjæveland <martige@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I think I have identified problems with the constant shortcut properties rr:subject, rr:predicate, rr:object and rr:graph in the R2RML ontology (http://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml). It seems at their domain definitions are wrong and not according to the specification text. >>>> >>>> The attached test ontology contains two examples which are equivalent according to the recommendation text, but inconsistent according to the R2RML ontology. The attachment explains this in more detail. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin G. Skjæveland >>>> <r2rml-test.ttl> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> >
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 13:47:39 UTC