W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Official OWL version outdated

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 14:14:38 -0400
Message-ID: <518E8A8E.3070201@openlinksw.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 5/10/13 9:23 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I have posted an up to date OWL version of schema.org at
>
> http://topbraid.org/schema/
>
> which follows different OWL encoding conventions than the other 
> RDF/OWL version(s) that I have come across. The page above explains 
> these conventions and their motivation.
>
> Feedback appreciated - this is just a first version (with the RDFa 
> file as its starting point).

Thank you!!!

See:

1. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/topbraid.org/schema/schema.ttl
2. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftopbraid.org%2Fschema%2Fschema.ttl
3. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FProduct 
.

Kingsley
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
> On 5/8/2013 11:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 5/7/13 9:22 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2013 10:44, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Looking at the OWL version of schema.org <http://schema.org> at
>>>>
>>>>     http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl
>>>>
>>>>     I notice that this seems to be a rather old version, while the
>>>>     RDFa version
>>>>
>>>>     http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
>>>>
>>>>     seems to be more recent. (When) will the OWL version be fixed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it useful? what do you prefer? The use of OWL is pretty weak 
>>>> since we're so flexible.
>>>
>>> It's not very useful in its current form, yet I believe it can be 
>>> made very useful with a few changes. You guys are probably wasting 
>>> an opportunity to get more "semantic web" people on board. My guess 
>>> is that most OWL people look at both prominent online versions (the 
>>> official one and the one of rdfs.org) and walk away because they are 
>>> rather unusable.
>>>
>>> Specifically, I would do the following transformations (and as an 
>>> exercise I have actually implemented the required SPARQL updates 
>>> based on the current OWL file):
>>>
>>> - Clean up the owl:unionOfs with one member
>>> - Convert any usage of schema.org datatypes with xsd ones
>>> - Convert rdfs:range (Number or String) to xsd:float
>>>
>>> Along with a simple instance data converter, the ontology could be 
>>> changed to
>>> - Replace schema:Thing with owl:Thing
>>> - Replace schema:name with rdfs:label
>>> - Replace schema:description with rdfs:comment
>>> - Delete schema:url (as it's basically the URI of the subject)
>>>
>>> Manual clean up should
>>> - Add cardinality restrictions
>>> - Declare owl:inverseOf relationships
>>> - Mark outdated properties (such as the plural forms) as owl:deprecated.
>>>
>>> Could this info be made available anywhere in machine readable form? 
>>> I am pretty sure not only the RDF/OWL mapping could use this info.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does rdf/xml vs rdfa (or json-ld etc) matter to you? What about the 
>>>> choice of all in one big file vs per-term?
>>>
>>> It would be good to be able to owl:import something. The RDFa 
>>> version does some things better than the OWL version, but not 
>>> everything is perfect: properties with multiple rdfs:domains should 
>>> use owl:unionOf (I guess RDFa has trouble representing this?).
>>>
>>> And of course why not have the URIs dereferencable as true linked 
>>> data... This should be a trivial feature to add for an organization 
>>> that large. Even if just to show that the people behind schema.org 
>>> do care about the semantic web community.
>>>
>>> I am tempted to create our own copy based on the distilled RDFa 
>>> version on some topbraid.org address because I believe there is much 
>>> more potential here. 
>>
>> Yes, there is and I encourage you to crack on if you have the time. 
>> Basically, make your tweak and then just publish the revised document 
>> at URL.
>>
>>> One specific use case is that many of our customers build their own 
>>> ontologies with concepts that are reinvented all the time - Person, 
>>> Address etc. While our tooling is generic and can work with any 
>>> ontology, it would be better to ship our product with some starter 
>>> ontology and I believe schema.org could become the foundation of 
>>> this. For this starter ontology, we would define some customized 
>>> forms and views, e.g. so that addresses show street address above 
>>> postal code etc. We could also define some out of the box web 
>>> services with typical queries, reports etc. Clearly there are other 
>>> product ideas in this space that the schema.org effort could also 
>>> benefit of. The more alignment of data the better for everyone. Even 
>>> if RDFa and Microdata will remain the vehicles of distributing 
>>> schema.org instance data, these web pages may be generated by a 
>>> triple store.
>>
>> Not may, they will, and have been :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry if this is repeating some discussions that have already 
>>> happened elsewhere... I am trying to catch up.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>> Holger
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen	
>> Founder & CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>> Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Saturday, 11 May 2013 18:15:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:27 UTC