Re: Best practises for using multiple schemes to describe resources

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:03:48 +0100, Mikael Pesonen  
<> wrote:

> sorry if this is not the correct forum for this question.

It seems a pretty good forum...

> We are describing resources by (almost randomly) picking suitable  
> properties from various schemes, for example FOAF, Dublin Core, Nepomuk  
> and Organization ontology.
> If a scheme defines class for the property, should the resource which is  
> being described be always defined as such?

Depends on your use case.

For example, processors are pretty limited, and if you have  
information that is not using schema they tend to lose it, or at best  
ignore it.

Given that is relatively weak description (compared to many  
oother ontologies), you might want to consider having both Schema and some  
more accurate descriptive material. Because...

"Real" quality RDF systems are smarter than that and don't care too much  
about which vocabulary you use, so long as it suits you. In addition, many  
vocabularies to the helpful thing of describing how they are related to  

And to accurately describe something you should use the terms that best  
fit your need, and think about ways to work around limitations of  
particular tools.

All "in my own opinion, your mileage may vary, ..."



> Example:
> ?doc a ,
>        dcterms:title "Some document title" ,
> 93 ;
> Is this good practise, or should the resource be also defined as  
> nfo:InformationElement:
> ?doc a ,
>       a  
> ,
>       dcterms:title "Some document title" ,
> 93 ;
> Reason I'm asking is while this is a short example, things can become  
> complicated when more schemes are used. And the classes of various  
> schemes don't always mean exactly the same thing.
> Any thoughts or links to existing discussion would be appreciated.

Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
find more at

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 13:53:18 UTC