- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@volcano.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:57:20 -0700
- To: "David Pratt" <fairwinds@eastlink.ca>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
I'll "validate" it for you. MKE does lots of diagnostics, and pretty prints your hierarchies. One caveat: MKE is checking semantics, not syntax. Your ontology might pass MKE semantic check and fail RDF syntax check. But it should give you a lot more confidence in your ontology. Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; http://rhm.cdepot.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Pratt" <fairwinds@eastlink.ca> To: <semantic-web@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:13 AM Subject: RDF Schema Creation Questions > > Hi. I am writing an RDF schema but I have couple of questions. First, > it validates on W3C's RDF validator but seems to die when loading as a > new project in Protege so it has me concerned that there may be a > problem that I am not aware with my schema or that Protege may be > giving me grief. I am not sure which. Can someone suggest an > alternative tool I could consider using that can read and validate my > index.rdf as a schema. > > Protege puts all the classes and properties in alphabetical order also > where I want to put things in a different order so it will go with the > order the data will be entered for the most part. So I wrote a script > in python to assemble the schema in the order I wanted after I > understood the rdf structure a bit more. > > My goal is for the schema to be used by normal rdf libraries (such as > rdflib in python) so I have used owl sparingly. I am using FOAF as a > guide a bit this way since it is a well used schema. > > Are there any ontology gurus out there that is willing to have a quick > look at my schema to determine whether it has any obvious flaws can be > identified? I am prepared to put it up on the web so it can be viewed. > This would be very much appreciated as this is my first attempt and any > comments or suggestions that could help make it better would be welcome. > > Many thanks, > David > >
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 14:58:25 UTC