Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Kingsley's comments #11

Open
mhausenblas opened this issue Jun 9, 2011 · 1 comment
Open

Kingsley's comments #11

mhausenblas opened this issue Jun 9, 2011 · 1 comment

Comments

@mhausenblas
Copy link
Owner

See: http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FPlace .

isDefinedBy relation should associate a Class or Property with its Defining Ontology.
wdrs:describedby can be used to associate Object Name with Object Address.

Looking at your first cut, I would swap current isDefinedBy relations with wdrs:describedby. Then add isDefinedBy relations between Ontology Name and each of the Classes and Properties its defines.

The subtle difference between Description and Definition (a special kind of description) is highlighted by these suggested tweaks. Ditto the difference between Name and Address via wdrs:describedby.

OR

Sample page: http://uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.rdfs.org%2Fall&p=2&lp=4&first=&op=0&gp=2

@cygri
Copy link
Collaborator

cygri commented Jun 10, 2011

A lot of this is very valid advice for general RDF publishing. Our situation is difficult because we don't control schema.org and try to say reasonable things about a site that doesn't actually provide any RDF.

I think we should rather not squat the schema.org namespace to have http://schema.org/Thing#this because that contradicts the RDFa modeling documented on schema.org itself, where http://schema.org/Thing is used as the class URI.

I don't feel good about

schema:Thing rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/>.

because that page doesn't actually say anything about schema:Thing. It's just a homepage from where to navigate into the site. So I'd rather not make that assertion. I was looking for another property to express that relationship. rdfs:isPartOf? void:inDataset?

And given the choice between

schema:Thing rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/Thing>.
schema:Thing wdrs:describedby <http://schema.org/Thing>.

I prefer the first because rdfs:isDefinedBy is the more important property to assert. And the canonical definition of that class is really found on that page, so it's an accurate statement to make given the current configuration of HTTP resources at schema.org.

I'm tempted to make http://schema.rdfs.org/all a void:Dataset and relate all the classes and properties to it via void:inDataset, but that's also a bit fishy because they are not RDF documents.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants