- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:23:48 +0000
- To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "Ghislain Atemezing" <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, February 02, 2017 1:04 PM, Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr] wrote: > Le 01/02/2017 à 18:03, Francois Daoust a écrit : > 2. There are no "rdfs:isDefinedBy" statements. More specifically, I was expecting to > see "rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2006/time>" for each class and property in > the ontology. Aren't they needed (or recommended) to link back classes and properties > back to the ontology? > +0. There is no recommendation of using rdfs:isDefinedBy for each class and > property. IMHO, knowing that all the ontologies used in the vocab are dereferenceable > par their URIs, I would not see any need to add that extra triples. > > +1 in favour of rdfs:isDefinedBy axioms. > > My arguments are : > > - this is in the set of Metadata Recommendations For Linked Open Data Vocabularies, > promoted by the Linked Open Vocabulary website [1] . See section "Vocabulary > Elements (Classes and Properties)" > - This is consistent with the practice applied in most of the vocabularies published on > the W3C website. > - This practice will also be applied in the ontologies published by the SSN sub-group. > There should be some consitency at least within the SDW group. +1 for rdfs:isDefinedBy from me, too, for the very same reasons (that I couldn't have phrased so well). Best, Lars
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 12:24:36 UTC