Re: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

Hi Ghislain,

Le 02/02/2017 à 11:32, Ghislain Atemezing a écrit :
> Hi Francois,
>> Le 2 févr. 2017 à 11:12, Francois Daoust <
>> <>> a écrit :
>> 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.
> Interesting point. If this is the case, we can then follow the same
> rule. I guess the mentioned vocabs are REC ones?!

Most of the underlying specifications are REC, except for ODRL, vCard 
and SIOC on top of my head (well, and Web Annotation, which is "only" a 
Proposed REC for the time being).

> Something that says:
>    - If a vocab is for REC, add the “rdfs:isDefinedBy” annotation.
>    - If not, not a compulsory requirement.

Why does it matter whether the vocabulary is for a REC?

Also, I was not suggesting to make that a "requirement", be it only 
because I'm not entirely sure where to make this a requirement within 
w3C, to start with.

It makes sense to me to publish an ontology whose definition follows the 
same patterns as other ontologies published by this group or other W3C 
groups, but I'm fine if the group thinks this particular point does not 

> It could be interesting to also check what happens for all the vocabs
> published under W3C (see a list here [1] according to LOV )

Looking at some of the vocabularies listed there, I see published 
vocabularies without "rdfs:isDefinedBy" statements such as cal, EARL, 
geo, RDFa. These vocabularies seem to have been published earlier on.


> Ghislain
> [1]
> --------------------------------------------
> Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
> R&D Engineer SemWeb
> @ Mondeca, Paris, France
> Labs: <>
> Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034
> Web: <>
> Twitter: @gatemezing
> About Me:

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 11:51:26 UTC