W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Wikidata export in RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <501FBAB7.5080905@gmail.com>
To: Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de>
CC: Semantic Web mailing list <semantic-web@w3.org>

On 08/06/2012 08:25 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
> 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.
This might do the trick.  Perhaps, however, adding something like
Berlin:statement v:property p:Population
would be better, albeit with the cost of adding an extra triple to the 
encoding.  However, that should probably go hand-in-hand with changing 
v:Population to something like v:value.  I'm also not sure what role 
q:Population has here, as it does not show up in the document.
>> 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.
Even though this might be somewhat useful, I think that it would end up being 
confusing.  If you need an rdfs:label then something more like "population 
statement" would be more in keeping with what I think of as a label.
>> 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?
Hmm.  No.  Sorry for being unclear.

I meant to say to remove the RDF encoding from the document and replacing them 
by a blanket statement that the RDF encoding of the OWL axioms is included in 
an RDF export format.

> [...]
> Again thank you,
> Denny
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 12:38:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:30 UTC