RE: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

Folks - 

I won't make this a veto issue, and would be OK adding these triples if that really is the policy. But I have a residual uneasiness. 

The convention to use rdfs:isDefinedBy to point from ontology resources to the ontology (URI) is by now quite well established. But it does seem to somehow hijack the rdfs:isDefinedBy predicate for a rather narrow use, in the context of formal ontologies. There is a risk of implying that all other uses, which were allowed by the original RDFS spec, are somehow invalid. 

I can see that there is a gap in the OWL design (ontology membership/ownership predicate) and I see where this convention came from. But I would suggest that some clarification in W3C or RDFS is probably warranted. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de] 
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 23:24
To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; Ghislain Atemezing <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

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 22:39:22 UTC