W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

RE: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:12:23 +0100
To: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <086b01d27d3c$d92e0fb0$8b8a2f10$@w3.org>
> From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 12:08 AM
> 1. The imports are not necessary. Help during authoring as it puts all the dc
> terms into the menus, but doesn't have to stay.
> 2. Understand the informal convention, though it is unevenly applied. I guess
> if this is standard W3C style they could be added.
> 3. Agree.
> I've actioned 1. And 3. But need to understand more about policy for 2.

For 2., I thought the "rdfs:isDefinedBy" statements were needed to associate classes and properties to an ontology, and that the document or RDF graph they lived in did not have any meaning. Thanks to you and to Ghislain, I now see that I was wrong! Ontologies are associated with an ontology document [1] [2], and this is what defines the set of classes, properties and axioms that compose the ontology. The "rdfs:isDefinedBy" statement is just an annotation.

I do not know if there is any policy about such annotations. That seems common practice, though. I see such statements in all W3C published ontologies I checked: RDF, RDF schema, OWL, DCAT, Organization, Data Cube, vCard, ODRL, PROV, SKOS, SIOC, and Web Annotation ontologies.


[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/#Ontology_Documents
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20121211/#Mapping_from_RDF_Graphs_to_the_Structural_Specification

Now that I eeing your replay and Ghislain's reply,
I was taking things a bit too far was incorrectly looking for something that is not needed in practice.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 10:12:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:29 UTC