Re: Official OWL version outdated

Hi Holger

Nice try :)

I have comments on the redundant use of rdfs:domain, schema:domain.
rdfs:range, schema:range.
As explained quite a while ago by Dan and others, the way schema.org binds
properties to classes is over-specified by rdfs:domain and rdfs:range,
that's why the RDFa expression uses schema:domain and schema:range instead,
But actually those properties themselves are not defined, but
schema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes are defined.

So, seems to me all redundant declarations of rdfs:domain and schema:domain
should be replaced by a single schema:domainIncludes, and all redundant
declarations of rdfs:range and schema:range should be replaced by a single
schema:rangeIncludes.

For example instead of ...

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://schema.org/editor">
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://schema.org/Person"/>    <rdfs:domain
rdf:resource="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"/>    <schema:range
rdf:resource="http://schema.org/Person"/>    <schema:domain
rdf:resource="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"/></owl:ObjectProperty>

declare the following ...

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://schema.org/editor">
<schema:rangeIncludes rdf:resource="http://schema.org/Person"/>
<schema:domainIncludes
rdf:resource="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"/></owl:ObjectProperty>



2013/5/11 Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>

>  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).
>
> 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 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Bernard Vatant
*
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
Blog : the wheel and the hub <http://bvatant.blogspot.com>
--------------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**          **                   *
3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
www.mondeca.com
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
----------------------------------------------------------

Mondeca is selected to present at ReInvent Law,
London<http://reinventlawlondon.com/> on
June 14th

Mondeca will be supporting its client's
presentation<http://semtechbizsf2013.semanticweb.com/sessionPop.cfm?confid=70&proposalid=5127>
at
SemTech in San Francisco

 <http://semtechbizsf2013.semanticweb.com/sessionPop.cfm?confid=70&proposalid=5127>