- 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