Re: Usage of rdfs:label

Dear Antoine,

I understand that the definition of rdfs:label is outlined by the RDF
Schema specification. I asked, because the ontology returned by
requesting <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> (and others) returns
a document with the labels I mentioned. I found it wierd. I should have
probably be more expressive about it.

I would rather expect the labels to at least contain an "rdfs:" prefix,
so that the label is not, for example "Resource", but "rdfs:Resource".
The label of "rdfs:Resource" would name the resource that is the class
of RDF resources as defined by RDF Schema in the general, universal
context. Such a label is also used in all specifications I have read.
I just don’t understand why the labels differs from the specification.

If the label literal were to be used a replacement for the resource URI,
then I would not know what resource is the label for. There is nothing
in this label telling me that "Resource" is a class; "rdfs:Resource"
would, because I am familiar with this (more expressive) label. It’s
more natural.

Was those documents produced by people other than those that have
written the specifications? Although, now that I am writing it,
I noticed that these is also a back-referenece in the form of
rdfs:isDefinedBy, so I’m maybe I’m being too picky here.

I wasn’t sure what would be the right design decision in a vocabulary
I’m writing as a hobby. I asked to be certain whether I ought to define
my properties as sub-properites or define them as distinct from
rdfs:label. The labels I saw confused me about the meaning of this property.

If I should be prioritizing the text of the specification, then your
answer is enough.

Sincerely,
Felicja

On 29/08/16 11:08, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Dear Felicja,
> 
> 
> The intended meaning of the property rdfs:label is explained in the
> recommendation RDF Schema [1].  The property should be used to provide a
> human readable name for a resource.  It very often happens that
> rdfs:label (like all standard properties) is missused.  Considering the
> intended meaning of rdfs:label, one should not use camelCase or
> underscore_names as a label, IMHO.  Yet, what "human-readable" means is
> subject to interpretation and one could argue that camelCase identifiers
> are perfectly human-readable.
> 
> 
> Best,
> --AZ
> 
> [1] Dan Brickley, R.V. Guha (eds.). RDF Schema 1.1, W3C Recommendation
> 25 February 2014. Section 3.6, rdfs:label.
> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_label
> 
> Le 27/08/2016 23:18, Felicja Sobczyk a écrit :
>> Excuse me, what is the intended usage of rdfs:label?
>> What the currently deployed software expects from the property value?
>>
>> By examining RDF, RDF Schema and OWL2 vocabularies, I can see that all
>> terms contain their local names as their labels. Why? Why was such
>> a label chosen here? If it is supposed to be a human-readable name for
>> the resource, then why are there no spaces and the name is written in
>> camelCase? How is this property indended to be used by applications?
>>
>> Is there some kind of context for the human readability that the
>> specification mentions?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Felicja
>>
>