- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:19:00 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Jonathan, the draft I'm preparing for publication says: "Indeed, RDF's Schema [RDFSchema] and OWL Ontology technologies [OWL] together offer a standard, machine-processable means of describing relationships between RDF statements, e.g. that one property is an rdfs:subPropertyOf of another. " Does this address your concern? Thank you. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> 12/19/2008 08:58 AM To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org> Subject: Property example in "Self-describing web" draft Re: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2008-12-03.html where it says: 'Indeed, RDF's Schema [RDFSchema] and OWL Ontology technologies [OWL] together offer a standard, machine-processable means of describing relationships between RDF statements, e.g. that two seemingly differing predicates are the "owl:sameAs" each other.' The reason to avoid going outside of OWL-DL (using sameAs on non-individuals) is not to make any kind of endorsement of DL, but simply because there is no reason not to use DL here, and it would be less distracting if the question, which is irrelevant to this presentation, simply had no way to come up. The easiest fix is to use owl:equivalentProperty instead of owl:sameAs. A better example might simply use a more useful, less distracting, and less controversial relation, for example: e.g. that one property is an "rdfs:subPropertyOf" another I would change "predicate" to "property" to follow established RDF and OWL usage. However I appreciate that "predicate" or "relationship" might be a more intuitive term (in this context they're all roughly synonymous), and I would defer to your editorial taste. I have a hard time with "relationships between RDF statements". Relationships hold between arbitrary resources, not (just) statements, and I don't think you really mean relationships between statements here. How would the following example work for you? 'offer a standard, machine-processable means of describing relationships that hold between resources, e.g. that the foaf:publications relationship holds between persons and documents.' Domain and range (what I've written informally as "holds between") sound to me more like an ordinary description of a property than rdfs:subPropertyOf or owl:equivalentProperty, both of which seem comparatively exotic. (You would want to spell out the full URI for foaf:publications (http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/publications).) Best Jonathan
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 05:18:57 UTC