- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:42:01 -0400
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <534175C9.2010003@openlinksw.com>
On 4/6/14 3:35 AM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/14 5:04 AM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
>>
>> For me, I would think that each term might reference the
>> vocabulary document somehow (perhaps rel=describedBy?). It
>> would also be useful if going to http://schema.org/ would
>> somehow allow discovery of the vocabulary.
>>
>>
>> I agree, that would be nice. I'm sure rdfs:isDefinedBy [1] is the
>> right property for that. :)
>
> An rdfs:isDefinedBy relation associates Properties and Classes
> with the vocabulary in which they are defined.
>
> An wdrs:describedby (equivalentPropertyOf xhv:describedBy and
> inversePropertyOf xhv:describes) relation associates Properties
> and Classes with a Vocabulary document (e.g.,
> <http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html>
> <http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html>) that is comprised
> of statements describing the aforementioned Properties and Classes.
>
>
> Yes, that is true. I was rather vague in my statement about the
> "right" property here. I was thinking more of linking the classes and
> properties (in the dedicated pages describing them) to the vocabulary
> itself. I am not sure whether the URI for that is
> <http://schema.org/>, or another resource represented by the RDFa
> serialization. Given the status of the latter as a "mere"
> representation, I do agree that describedby seems more correct. But
> since schema.org <http://schema.org> in general avoids the
> distinction, what I had in mind was more along the lines of this
> (expressed in TriG):
>
> graph <http://schema.org/Thing> {
> <http://schema.org/Thing> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/> .
> }
> graph <http://schema.org/> {
> <http://schema.org/> rdfs:seeAlso
> <http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html> .
> }
>
> (In general when I write scripts processing multiple vocabularies
> together, I look for rdfs:isDefinedBy. Rather often though, I need to
> revert that to string inspection of the term identifiers. Even for
> OWL. So I might be wishing for too much here.)
>
> Ideally, you want to use both relations due to the fact that an
> Ontology is one entity, a Document comprised of what constitutes
> an Ontology is another entity [1].
>
>
> Ideally, I would agree. :) But even this distinction was under debate
> elsewhere some years ago [2] (ah, pedantic-web..). And since
> schema.org <http://schema.org> does "shadow" documents with what their
> URIs formally denote (which I accept), I was thinking of avoiding that
> debate by aiming for "what is meant" rather than "what describes
> what". But I surely know this is hard to do, and this question does
> raise the distinction. Hopefully not to the point of debating
> httpRange-14 (let's not go there here), but to determine a useful
> means for describing and discovering schema.org <http://schema.org>
> the vocabulary.
>
> (Given how this goes I might pull out of the debate, since I get
> really nervous when I say httpRange-14 in public like this. It's like
> saying "Candyman".)
>
> Cheers,
> Niklas
>
> [2]:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/pedantic-web/RZ6kxlAVIy8/8r_JE4gVXFAJ
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21msg/pedantic-web/RZ6kxlAVIy8/8r_JE4gVXFAJ>
Since schema.org is document scoped, re., entity denotation granularity,
it can use wdrs:describedby and xhv:describes based relations [1] for
associating classes, properties with the documents (e.g.,
<http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html> ) in which they are
described.
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
-- covers describedby and describes based relations.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2014 15:42:23 UTC