Re: [WNET] Schemas online

At 01:24 AM 5/11/2006 +0300, Mark van Assem wrote:
>Hi Aldo,

in re: the statements of the form
<rdf:Property rdf:about="&wn20schema;attribute" />

>Remember that these statements were specifically added so that both RDFS and OWL software could interpret the same schema file.

For this phase of the WordNet work I would prefer to favor
RDFS tools over OWL reasoners so I support keeping those
explicit rdf:type declarations in the schema even if they cause
Protege some discomfort.

>Of course the same effect could be reached by inserting that OWL Datatype/ObjectProperty are subClassOf rdf:Property,

And that's already declared in the OWL ontology [1,2] so we should
not need to repeat the statement.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#appB
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#

> The solution in the current files at least is the one which makes the least commitment. And I don't think it is a disallowed solution in RDF or OWL.

seems right to me.

At 16:37 +0300 10-05-2006, Mark van Assem wrote:
...
>>>- I used XML Schema Datatypes also for e.g. the gloss and lexicalForm properties, but I can recall that when properties have an XSD as range then the actual glosses and lexical forms are not supplied with the XML lang attribute. If this is correct, I should probably change to rdfs:Literal?

This (how language tagging is identified) is a sore point for me.
In general I would like to see non-English rdfs:label values, etc.
but I thought that you'd decided that the Princeton WordNet 2.0
data was exclusively English-language so we don't really need
to carry explicit language tagging?

However, it's also not obvious to me what benefit we obtain
from restricting the range of wn:lexicalForm and wn:gloss to be
xsd:string rather than rdfs:Literal.  Unless it's clear that there
is some utility to restricting the range my default is to permit
the broadest class.  Let's not forget, too, that the Princeton
data is the basis for these triples and if it's clear that there
can (and will) be nothing other than xsd:string values in the
data then I can't see any harm in declaring that in the schema.

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_literal

>>>- there are two properties that are subPropertyOf rdfs:label / rdfs:comment. The OWL validator complains that the rdfs properties should be DatatypeProperties. Is this an issue?

Not for me :)  If declaring wn:lexicalLabel and wn:hyponymOf
to be rdfs:type owl:DataTypeProperty helps, that may be OK.

-Ralph

Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 17:13:42 UTC