Fwd: Best practises for using multiple schemes to describe resources

Mikael:
If a single scheme does not meet your needs then it is most acceptable to
define your own . If you adopt an element of an existing scheme it would be
useful to provide a referential link to that 'meaning' .
\   things can become complicated when more schemes are used. And the
classes of various schemes don't always mean exactly the same thing.\

If you publish your new scheme to allow others to adopt it .. you may see
that others agree with your construct

good luck

Carl Mattocks

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>
wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:03:48 +0100, Mikael Pesonen <
> mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi> 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, schema.org 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 Schema.org 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
> others.
>
> 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, ..."
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> Example:
>>
>>
>> ?doc a http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document ,
>>        dcterms:title "Some document title" ,
>> http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nfo/#wordCount 93 ;
>>
>>
>> Is this good practise, or should the resource be also defined as
>> nfo:InformationElement:
>>
>>
>> ?doc a http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document ,
>>       a http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nfo/#In
>> formationElement ,
>>       dcterms:title "Some document title" ,
>> http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nfo/#wordCount 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.
>>
>>
>
>




-- 
Principal Wellness Intelligence Institute
voicemail (usa) (732) 497-CARL {2275}
carlmattocks @ WellnessIntelligence.Institute