Re: Revising the WAV Vocabulary

Am 15.09.2011 15:09, schrieb Bob Ferris:
> Hi all,
> 
> what do you think about revising the WAC Vocabulary [1]? I guess, the
> majority of issues are already mentioned at [2]. I would only like to
> add the following remarks:
> 
> - add a human-readable representation of this vocabulary (btw, this is
> still a drawback of the majority of the W3C vocabularies, e.g., the RDF,
> RDFS and OWL namespace - proper content negotiation please!)

+1

> - I rendered the WAC Vocabulary with Parrot [3] (see [4]) and discovered
> that acl:agent property is defined twice - each of them has a different
> range (I would vote for the foaf:Agent range)

Just the label of acl:agentClass is wrong, but as I is understand the
intension for the property acl:agentClass is the same as for the class
foaf:Group. So the acl:agent property with the foaf:Agent range could
cover both cases.

> - maybe we can already merge the WAC Vocabulary with some terms of the
> TAC Vocabulary or another triple-based approach (however, I guess, we
> have to investigate here a bit more time into a deeper comparison).

TAC for example is already based on WAC, but I agree that this needs
more time and implementation experience. For example regular expression
based filters or a predicate filter for a whole namespaces could make
sense. On the other hand if we merge them now, later we wouldn't have to
deal with two ontologies in our code.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Bo
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl
> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebAccessControl/Vocabulary
> [3] http://ontorule-project.eu/parrot/parrot
> [4]
> http://ontorule-project.eu/parrot/parrot?documentUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fns%2Fauth%2Facl&mimetype=default&profile=technical&language=en&customizeCssUrl=
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 23:38:35 UTC