Re: Re-using and labelling other people's terms

And Jeremy's logic also applies to owl:sameAs.  I.e., if people don't
like it, they don't need to believe you.  So if you have reviewed the
dangers of using owl:sameAs inappropriately
http://www.slideshare.net/jpmccusker/owlsameas-considered-harmful-to-provenance 
and you still think it is semantically correct for your purposes, then
go ahead and use it.

David


On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 19:37 -0800, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> You could use a subPropertyOf  version of A, B, C ...
> 
> B is also plausible given your rationale. If people don't like it, they 
> don't need to believe you.
> 
> foaf:name skos:prefLabel "Please don't use foaf:name, it sucks" .
> 
> is probably not a consensus reaching triple ....
> but may be appropriate (or not) in some projects. People who disagree 
> with this triple, might not use your project.
> What you choose to say about a foreign property, is what you choose to 
> say, nothing more, and nothing less. If someone reads more into your 
> opinion than it merits, that really is their problem not yours.
> 
> I don't think there is a single truth, and if your truth differs from 
> that of the property authors, well, why is that surprising or difficult.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> On 11/25/2011 7:42 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A project I'm working on has produced a concept scheme of classes and 
> > properties. I'm now encoding this as an RDF Schema, which is easy for 
> > the terms we're minting, but I'm getting in a twist about terms 
> > defined elsewhere. Rather than use owl:sameAs etc. I want to use the 
> > actual 'foreign' property.
> >
> > Context: ADMS is a vocab for describing data catalogues, being 
> > developed under the EU's ISA Programme [1].
> >
> > DCAT is the widely used vocab for this sort of thing so we're using a 
> > lot of terms from there as well as from DC and FOAF.
> >
> > So here's my question: ADMS has a class 'Asset' that is semantically 
> > identical to DCAT's 'Dataset'. What's the best property to use to add 
> > a lexical label of "ADMS Asset" to the existing term dcat:Dataset ?
> >
> > I see several possibilities:
> >
> > A) just use rdfs:label. This is potentially bad since a triple store 
> > with both DCAT and ADMS schemata would have multiple rdfs:labels for 
> > the same thing. That's legal, but possibly unhelpful.
> >
> > B) use skos:prefLabel. In the context of ADMS, it /is/ the preferred 
> > label but, well, it seems a little rude to use this?
> >
> > C) use skos:altLabel. This is probably safest since one can argue that 
> > 'ADMS Asset' is indeed an alternative label for dcat:Dataset, but it 
> > seems odd to use altLabel (only) in a schema of any kind.
> >
> > D) define a specific term for "we know it's called foo in the original 
> > but here we call it bar." Who would know to look for it? :-(
> >
> > E) get over myself and use owl:sameAs to assert the adms:Asset and 
> > dcat:Dataset are the same.
> >
> > I'm tending towards C or possibly A at the moment but it doesn't feel 
> > right.
> >
> > Any advice please?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Phil.
> >
> >
> > [1] 
> > http://www.semic.eu/semic/view/documents/2011-11-15_ADMS_draft_specification.pdf
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 04:00:34 UTC