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

RE: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

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>
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010D2B83F9@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
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).


Received on Thursday, 2 February 2017 12:24:36 UTC

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