- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:21:52 +1000
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 12/18/2014 0:13, mfhepp@gmail.com wrote:
> Side-comment:
>
> Personally I think we will have to go to a "frame-based" approach in schema.org sooner or later, i.e. defining properties locally for each type or supertype, so that name clashes between independent branches of schema.org will not be too much of a problem.
>
> So "code" for http://schema.org/MedicalTherapy would no longer need to be the same as "code" in any other context.
+1
FWIW there is an active W3C group on Data Shapes [1] where the topic of
how to associate properties with classes is an important issue. One
proposal (that I am supporting there) is using a (Turtle) syntax such as
schema:MedicalEntity
a rdfs:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf schema:Thing ;
:property [
:predicate schema:code ;
:valueType schema:MedicalCode ;
rdfs:label "code" ;
rdfs:comment "A medical code for the entity, taken from a
controlled vocabulary or ontology such as ICD-9, DiseasesDB, MeSH,
SNOMED-CT, RxNorm, etc." ;
] ; ...
which resolves some of the problems of only having global property
definitions like in RDF Schema. It avoids the problems of
rdfs:domain/range (and schema:domainIncludes/rangeIncludes), has the
ability to have context-specific comments and labels, as well as
additional property characteristics, all in a single consistent format.
(Note that I used the default namespace for the system properties
because this proposed language does not have a name yet).
The JSON-LD would look similar and can hopefully be inferred.
I'd appreciate feedback if such a syntax as above would be of interest
to the schema.org community and future versions of the RDF mapping.
Disclaimer: although I am a member of that W3C group, I do not speak on
behalf of the group - no decisions have been made yet, and the above is
my personal proposal.
Holger
[1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 00:24:55 UTC