Re: rdfs:Schema

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012, Steve Harris wrote:

> On 2012-08-29, at 13:26, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 29 August 2012, Yves Raimond wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> A colleague of mine was writing a specification generation software for
>> web ontologies recently, and as part of his testing on multiple RDFS
>> vocabularies, noticed that most of them use the OWL namespace just for its
>> owl:Ontology class, to describe the vocabulary itself.
>>
>> Would it make sense to create a new rdfs:Schema class, to make it simpler
>> for people to create basic vocabularies, without having to involve OWL at
>> all?
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. I would advise against this:
>
> 1. There are lots of bits of OWL that it is good to use, even if you don't
> buy the whole DL vision. For example, knowing about class disjointness,
> property inverses, FPs and IFPs. Having the OWL 'Ontology' class can serve
> as a gateway drug to these useful extras.
>
> 2. You push work onto consumers; everyone who previously queried for owl:
> Ontology would now have to check for rdfs: Schema too.
>
> 3. Are there any members of one of these classes that are not also in the
> other? If yes, I fear this will confuse. If no, then this is purely
> cosmetics.
>
>
> +1
>
> 4. Both owl: and rdfs: are pre-declared prefixes in the rdfa 1.1 'initial
> context', and this addresses most of the cosmetic concern. New schemas
> ought to be written in rdfa imho.
>
>
> That made me double-take, but I've not seen a schema written in RDFa to
> see how legible that can be.
>


http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html

http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/

Dan


> - Steve
>
> --
> Steve Harris, CTO
> Garlik, a part of Experian
> +44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
> Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80
> 1ZZ
>
>