- From: Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:25:21 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web mailing list <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Peter, thank you for taking the time to review the draft -- this is very much appreciated. Answers are inline. 2012/8/6 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>: > Hi: > > The general approach appears to be acceptable. > > I would like to have some use of the base relationship in the encoding. As > it stands right now, there is no relationship between p:Population and > anything in the encoding, meaning that users cannot reliably infer the > relationship between the encoding and the base relationship. Of course, > human users can make guesses (perhaps by looking inside the IRIs), but this > does not work for systems. I understand and agree. Would the following suggestion work, i.e. adding annotation properties as follows? p:Population o:hasStatementProperty s:Population . p:Population o:hasValueProperty v:Population . p:Population o:hasQualifierProperty q:Population . Or does anyone have a better idea? If not, I will add this to the draft. > It looks as if rdf:label is a tyop for rdfs:label. However, I don't think > that rdfs:label should be used here. I think that it would be even better > to use some other property here. Note, in particular, that adding > provenance should change an rdfs:label property constructed in this way. Yes, it was a typo. Corrected. I like to use the rdfs:label at this place (i.e. for giving a label to the Statement instance) as it really makes a very readable rendering in most current linked data browsers. Otherwise I am not particularly attached to this solution. > I would suggest using a <=0 restriction instead of an all restriction to the > empty class for the no value SNAK, even though they have the same semantics. I am not attached to one or the other. If no one weights in on this I will go with your suggestion. > I suggest not using the RDF encoding for OWL restrictions. This comment confuses me. I do not know how else to represent the respective OWL axioms in RDF. Are you suggesting to leave the restrictions out of the RDF export? > peter > > PS: I believe that the xsd:date format is YYYY-MM-DD, not DD-MM-YYY. > You are correct. I corrected it, thanks. Again thank you, Denny > > > > On 08/06/2012 06:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> we have created the first draft of the Wikidata export in RDF. >> >> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Development/RDF> >> >> I am inviting the Semantic Web and Linked Data community to a >> discussion about it. >> >> Cheers, >> Denny >> >> > -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 12:25:56 UTC