Re: Extending RDFS, property-classes

Jiri,

Could SKOS [1] do the job?

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Jiri Prochazka <ojirio@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:54:31 +0100
> To: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Subject: Extending RDFS, property-classes
> Resent-From: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:56:44 +0000
> 
> Hi,
> inspired with recent discussion with Richard Newman ("RDF vocabulary
> scope guidelines, promoting properties to classes  - property
> identifiers") I have a suggestion to make.
> 
> RDF has no way of identifying predicate (property) uses (triples), which
> only restricts information about them to:
> 1) about what they state something (domain)
> 2) what they state about something (range)
> 
> This is insufficient for number of uses, take for example Richards tag
> ontology: http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
> 
> Apart from properties tag:taggedWithTag and tag:isTagOf, it defines
> class tag:Tagging, which extends them (it is these properties promoted
> to class), allowing more information about the relation to be expressed.
> 
> This is a good thing, but unfortunately there is no link between the
> properties and the class, which makes the data tagged with the
> properties and the data tagged with the class, like they each used
> different non-interlinked vocabularies...
> 
> I suggest to develop an extension to the vocabulary describing
> vocabularies (RDFS, OWL), so vocabulary designers could specify the link
>  and inferencing engines could work with it...
> 
> The vocabulary should map the property to the property-class since the
> expressiveness of the property is subset of the one of the property-class.
> 
> Basically the vocabulary draft should be:
> 
> :isPromotedProperty a rdf:Property ;
> rdfs:domain rdfs:Class ;
> rdfs:range rdf:Property .
> # But also it should use it's own philosophy on itself:
> :PropertyPromotion a rdfs:Class ;
> rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .   (really not sure here)
> :promotionOf a rdf:Property ;
> rdfs:domain :PropertyPromotion ;
> rdfs:range rdf:Property .
> :hasDomain a rdf:Property ;
> rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:domain ;   (really not sure here)
> rdfs:domain :PropertyPromotion .
> :hasRange a rdf:Property ;
> rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range ;   (really not sure here)
> rdfs:domain :PropertyPromotion .
> # And final craziness:
> :PropertyPromotion a :PropertyPromotion ;
> :promotionOf :isPromotedProperty ;
> :hasDomain rdfs:Class ;
> :hasRange rdf:Property .
> :PropertyPromotion :isPromotedProperty :isPromotedProperty .
> 
> Important is that the conversion can be done both directions.
> 
> Please comment on this proposal.
> If at least some people think this is a good idea, I could work on the
> vocabulary and rdfs:label and rdfs:comment it and publish it, however in
> corner of my mind I think it would need backing of W3C to be of any use
> (as all vocabulary describing vocabularies).
> 
> Kind regards,
> Jiri Prochazka
>

Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 22:12:14 UTC