- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:15:31 +1000
- To: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51916603.8020101@topquadrant.com>
Hi Bernard, the goal of my schema.org version was to be as friendly as possible to existing OWL/RDF tools. These existing tools have no idea what the properties schema:domain or schema:domainIncludes mean. Therefore I am using rdfs:domain. The topbraid version is not intended to be a 1:1 mapping of the official schema.org RDFa version - that already exists and people can use it if they prefer. I have left the schema:domain/range triples in my OWL version so that tools can consult those in addition to the rdfs: properties. Note that it's a different topic whether something like schema:domainIncludes should be standardized and used more widely - I agree that these might be more intuitive and extensible than the OWL work-around of owl:unionOf. But that's a larger topic... Regards, Holger On 5/14/2013 2:00, Bernard Vatant wrote: > 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 > <http://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:domainIncludesrdf:resource="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"/> > </owl:ObjectProperty> > > > 2013/5/11 Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com > <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> > > I have posted an up to date OWL version of schema.org > <http://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 <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 >>> <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 >>> <http://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 >>> <http://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 >>> <http://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 <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> >> 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 <http://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>
Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 22:16:21 UTC