- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:33:22 +0200
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
DC does not intend to be compatible with OWL DL and its properties are made to be flexible enough to be used with literals or URIs. However, I like to consider DC properties as AnnotationProperties, and it seems they are used as such by many people. Even in the OWL specifications, DC properties are shown as typical examples of AnnotationProperties. Protégé 4 includes declaration of AnnotationProperties for some DC terms by default. There are even two modified DC ontologies available where all properties are declared as AnnotationProperties [1,2], which can be used to "safely" import all the DC terms into a strictly OWL DL ontology. These modified ontologies are compatible with OWL (1/2) DL. Nevertheless, in this particular case, I'd say it makes sense to use an ObjectProperty instead, as it is core to the knowledge model of WikiData and a source is always identified by a URI. AnnotationProperties should be left for the things that are auxiliary to the domain being modelled. [1] DC terms in OWL DL. http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/dc/terms.owl [2] DC terms in OWL 2 DL. http://purl.org/NET/dc_owl2dl/terms Best, AZ Le 08/08/2012 15:55, Markus Krötzsch a écrit : > On 08/08/12 14:28, Bob Ferris wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> btw how about dct:source [1] or dct:publisher [2] as source (is derived >> from) property? > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think prov has better OWL compatibility > by declaring the type of its property (object vs. data). DC says that > its properties are "intended to be used with non-literal values" but I > am not sure if this is supposed to be a declaration as an object > property or not. > > Cheers, > > Markus > >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Bo >> >> >> [1] http://purl.org/dc/terms/source >> [2] http://purl.org/dc/terms/publisher >> >> On 08/08/2012 02:33 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: >>> Hi Jun, >>> >>> almost perfect! prov:hadPrimarySource is a tiny bit too strong (it >>> requires that source is from first-hand direct experience etc.), >>> whereas its superproperty prov:wasDerivedFrom is a bit too weak, but >>> can be used here. >>> >>> So if there was a prov:hadSource between these two, I would gladly use >>> it, not having the strong requirements for the source. >>> Otherwise I will settle for prov:wasDerivedFrom for now. >>> >>> Thank you again, that helped a lot! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Denny >>> >>> >>> 2012/8/8 Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>: >>>> Hi Denny, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 08/08/2012 13:05, Denny Vrandečić wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Every statement has an IRI. And the source will also have an IRI >>>>> describing it (i.e. an IRI for the statistical yearbook, an IRI for >>>>> the mentioned paper). >>>> >>>> >>>> By this, do you really specially asking for a property to express >>>> that a >>>> statement about an entity is derived from a certain primary source? >>>> >>>> How about the http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#hadPrimarySource? >>>> >>>> Note that there are some renaming going on around this property. If >>>> you want >>>> to use more than the above property, such as prov:source or >>>> prov:qualifiedSource, then please ping us before you do so. >>>> >>>> HTH, >>>> >>>> Jun >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> What I did not figure out is: which property from the provenance >>>>> ontology can I use to connect the statement IRI to the source IRI? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jun Zhao, PhD >>>> EPSRC Postdoctoral Fellow >>>> Department of Zoology >>>> University of Oxford >>>> Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road >>>> Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK >> >> > > -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 14:33:50 UTC