Re: Official OWL version outdated

Hi Bo,

thanks for your feedback.

On 5/16/2013 4:56, Bo Ferri wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> thanks a lot for providing this well-thoughtout schema.org to proper 
> RDF(S) mapping. Good work! I really endorse the mappings for the 
> schema/ontological terms that make use of the well known terms from 
> OWL and RDFS (instead of schema:Class etc.).
> However, I'm wondering why you've introduced a new name space 
> 'schemax' to create new classes, whose ranges could also be modelled 
> via owl:unionOf, or?

Yes I agree this isn't perfect and that's also the main reason why I 
marked the current version as "experimental". I would like to get more 
feedback on this.

The main reason for just having a single range with named union classes 
is that many tools (including some of our own) wouldn't know what type 
of widget to display and how to best allow users to select values. This 
problem is especially obvious for mixed properties that allow xsd:string 
or objects.

I will rename the current version (with the single range) and change the 
converter to use owl:unionOf ranges, then replace the version to use 
that convention. Then people have the choice which range convention they 
use.

Question: Some properties either allow objects or xsd:string values. 
Shall I leave those in tact or shall I suppress the xsd:string choice? 
If I leave them in I would need to turn them into rdf:Properties. I have 
not seen properties that have such a mixed union anywhere, but I guess 
it would be more correct to preserve them. Another idea would be to 
introduce different properties for the string part, e.g. 
schema:xy-string, but this would introduce different URIs. Please let me 
know your thoughts.

Thanks
Holger

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 22:10:55 UTC