- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:34:15 +0100
- To: Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 1 October 2013 09:47, Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com> wrote: > Hello there, > I am trying to understand why there is difference between the automatically > scraped formats from the Schema.org terms (RDF/XML, RDF/Turtleetc) found at > : http://schema.rdfs.org/ and the official OWL version of the terms is > directly maintained at Schema.org. > > Yet, the note said that the official OWL version of the terms is directly > maintained at Schema.org and independent from the above presented formats, > but most of our community are using the above formats and the differences > may causes some difficulties. > > The main observed difference is in properties range when it is "literal" in > OWL format, it's converted in "xsd:string" in automatically scraped formats, > although it's stated that all those formats are automatically scraped from > the Schema.org terms on a daily basis. Can we have a reliable tool to > produce Schema.org terms as they are in the original official OWL version? > By the way is this OWL version (from http://schema.rdfs.org/ ) up-to-date? At this stage, the best and primary auto-generated public machine representation of schema.org is the RDFa version, http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html -> http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html The OWL version at schema.org is not being regenerated currently, and there have been discussions about whether or not it would be useful in some altered form. Holger (cc:'d) has made a more recent draft OWL version available at http://topbraid.org/schema/ though I don't know if it tracking changes to schema_org_rdfa.html I don't know if the files and tools at rdfs.org are staying current; this is work from a research group at DERI. The main difference you'll find in the official schema.org representation is that we use very loose type/property associations (hence 'rangeIncludes' instead of 'rdfs:range', etc). Dan > Kind Regards, > > Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare > Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research > T +32 3444 8188 | M +32 499 713 300 > > http://www.agfahealthcare.com > http://blog.agfahealthcare.com > ________________________________ > Click on link to read important disclaimer: > http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 12:34:42 UTC