- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:52:15 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "Martin G. Skjæveland" <martige@ifi.uio.no>, public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <A5C65F6B-3FC5-4F2A-A326-ABEC9F61A323@w3.org>
> On 24 Feb 2016, at 14:19, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > > >> On 24 Feb 2016, at 12:32, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto: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. > > 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? I am not sure, but I suspect the HTML+RDFa is the master. I usually generate all the other variants before pushing them up, via CVS, to the server Ivan > > 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 <mailto: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 <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> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 13:54:04 UTC