- From: Bob DuCharme <bob@snee.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:04:07 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Sandro, rq:short could be very useful in applications built around data using a particular schema--for example, in the automated creation of forms. This could help frame your diction question. I also think that a property to store example values would be a really good idea. I'm a little confused about rq:comment. You mention "two properties for linking RDF properties to text which presents the property as a question", but your rq:comment example is not a question. If it's a current best practice to include an rdfs:comment with each property declaration, would rq:details be a subproperty of that, with people encouraged to use that instead in the future, or do you see any difference between how that would be used and how rdfs:comment is currently used? Bob On 10/24/2010 9:18 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > I like to think of RDF vocabularies as questionnaires, where each RDF > property is a simple question. I think this approach makes RDF much > less mysterious, and my hypothesis is that it will allow people without > much specialized training to understand and even create pretty good > vocabularies. This seems like a pretty obvious way to approach RDF, but > I haven't seen other people, software, or documentation using it, nor > have a I see a metadata vocabulary to support it. > > The main thing I'm looking for is two properties for linking RDF > properties to text which presents the property as a question. I think > it's good to have two properties, because usually you want a short form > of a question, and then some longer explanatory text. > > For example, I'm picturing: > > foaf:name rq:short "What is the name of this person or entity?"; > rq:details """This is the full name, a sequence of > characters by which this entity is generally > known, with the parts (like firstname and > lastname) in the order used for normal > presentation (not sorting order).""" > > Additional metadata like example values (with explanations), and > importance/salience could be nice, too. My biggest question is about > diction: "What is its name?" vs "What is the name?" vs "What is the > full, common name", vs as above. I think it will take an effort to > present many different kinds of vocabularies to many different > populations to understand the best ways to phrase the questions. (But > I think any of these options is still pretty good.) > > Where properties are questions, classes used for domains are things the > questions are about, and classes used for ranges constrain the answers > and lead to more detailed questions about items provided as answers. > > So, has anyone made progress in this direction, and I've missed it? > Alternatively, does anyone have evidence of shortcomings of this > approach? > > To clarify and motivate slightly: my immediate interest is to help > people in government work with RDF vocabularies. My guess is they're > pretty familiar with filling out forms, and sometimes even designing > them. I feel like we need to meet them on their own ground, instead > trying to teach them to use protégé or something. > > -- Sandro >
Received on Sunday, 24 October 2010 15:04:31 UTC