Phil, Thanks. I didn't realize that GR had created those relationships
with schema.org -- I only view it from schema.org. From the schema.org
viewpoint, GR is an 'auxiliary' vocabulary and schema doesn't integrate
(AFAIK) GR or any other vocab in its ontology/namespace. However, the
risk of divergence isn't any greater with LRMI or GR or any other
ontology that does not limit itself to a single namespace. When you
think about the number of ontologies that incorporate some dcterms, it's
rather obvious that we are sitting on the proverbial ground zero here.
Looking at the LOV stats [1] DCterms is used in 327 datasets, Dc
elements in 178 [2], making DC the most "re-used" vocabulary in LoD space.
In the "anyone can say anything about anything" of LoD, divergence is a
big question. schema.org protects itself by limiting to a single
namespace for classes and properties. Obviously, hundreds of others have
made a different choice. Which is the right way to go? The omniscient
being who has this answer seems to to keeping it to itself.
kc
[1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_dcterms.html
[2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_dce.html
On 1/10/15 3:30 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
> On 10/01/15 08:25, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> On 1/8/15 10:58 AM, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>>> Your question regarding any future divergence between an LRMI term and
>>> the adopted schema.org <http://schema.org> term might well be asked
>>> regarding the relationship between the GoodRelations and schema.org
>>> <http://schema.org> terms. Both own and curate their namespaces.
>>
>> There can be no divergence between GoodRelations and schema because
>> GoodRelations furnishes only URIs for values/types that are ALSO used
>> in the schema.org instance data. The difference between
>> GoodRelationships and LRMI is that LRMI is defining properties. The
>> relationships really are not analogous.
>>
>> kc
>
> No, I don't think that is true.
> - GoodRelations provides a URI for QuantitativeValueInteger [1] which it
> states as being a subclass of http://schema.org/Quantity , there being
> none in schema.org
> - GoodRelations provides URIs for product or service instances, the
> "Individuals" listed at [2] which are not schema.org enumerations
> - As far as I know there is no equivalent of gr:TypeAndQuantityNode [3]
> in schema
> - Not all classes in schema that derive from GoodRelations are
> unchanged. schema.org Offer is not the same as GoodRelations class
> gr:Offering [4] which states "Compatibility with schema.org: This class
> is a superclass to http://schema.org/Offer, since gr:Offering can also
> represent demand."
>
> I think that the statement about GoodRelations and Schema, that "
> GoodRelations has been added /almost entirely/ to the schema.org
> vocabulary." /[//my emphasis] /[5] holds true and would well describe
> what happened with LRMI.
>
> Phil
>
> 1.
> http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#QuantitativeValueInteger
> 2. http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#individuals
> 3. http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#TypeAndQuantityNode
> 4. http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#Offering
> 5. http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/GoodRelations_and_schema.org
>
>
> --
> --
> Phil Barker @philbarker
> LRMI, Cetis, ICBLhttp://people.pjjk.net/phil
> Heriot-Watt University
>
> Ubuntu:http://xkcd.com/456/
> not so much an operating system as a learning opportunity.
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|