Re: Best practises for using multiple schemes to describe resources

Hi,
Good question.
I guess I go and look at the documentation to start me when I have such questions.
If I am using a property, and the domain (or range) is defined, then I feel obliged to provide the correct types.
A quick look at dcterms:title suggest there is no domain definition (only a Literal range), which you have, so it doesn't bring any domain type obligations on you.
However, a look at
http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nfo/#wordCount
(try http://web.archive.org/web/20160216010039/http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nfo/ as the link is dead)
shows it has a nfo:TextDocument domain, so you are sort of obliged to declare that.

So, assuming that you also want foaf:Document for other reasons, you might also have nfo:TextDocument

But the biggest question should always be: "Is the output fit for purpose?" :-)
How is all this being consumed?
By you? By others?
If the result of using properties from lots of different ontologies is that you define lots of different types on everything and that will make the result unwieldy or even unusable, then I think you have to go with the less purist approach, and simply let the types be inferred.
(Remember, as I understand it, the Things will have the types, you just aren't declaring them explicitly.)

I always worry about whether what I have defined is what is best to use (by me and/or by others), rather than whether I have somehow captured the world in the best possible way.
You haven't told us anything about the consumption, so it is hard to make any more comments.

But I'm pretty sure I don't really understand this stuff, so your mileage will definitely vary :-) 

Best
Hugh

> On 14 Feb 2018, at 13:03, Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> sorry if this is not the correct forum for this question.
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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/#InformationElement ,
>      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.
> 
> -- 
> Lingsoft - 30 years of Leading Language Management
> 
> www.lingsoft.fi
> 
> Speech Applications - Language Management - Translation - Reader's and Writer's Tools - Text Tools - E-books and M-books
> 
> Mikael Pesonen
> System Engineer
> 
> e-mail: mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi
> Tel. +358 2 279 3300
> 
> Time zone: GMT+2
> 
> Helsinki Office
> Eteläranta 10
> FI-00130 Helsinki
> FINLAND
> 
> Turku Office
> Kauppiaskatu 5 A
> FI-20100 Turku
> FINLAND
> 
>

Received on Friday, 16 February 2018 09:02:50 UTC