- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:54:03 +0100
- To: "Martin G. Skjæveland" <martige@ifi.uio.no>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C74526B0-4273-469E-8B5D-DA3923557289@w3.org>
> On 24 Feb 2016, at 14:47, Martin G. Skjæveland <martige@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > > > 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. Let us separate the issues. As I said, there is no problem to update the file to handle bugs. However, I would be uneasy to change the namespace document with a different ontology. That would require a community consensus of some sort, which is a different story. Ivan > > 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> >> ---- 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 13:55:50 UTC