Jeff, would owl:Thing really be inferred in data that limits itself to
RDFS? I think it depends on the applications, and today many
applications are OWL-based (and therefore convert RDFS to OWL). Using
RDFS I can see that rdf:Resource would be the logical inference when no
subclass of rdf:Resource is included in the instance data, but I'm not
sure how and when OWL becomes a default. In any case, is my assumption
correct that one CAN create even complex graphs without necessarily
making use of explicit classes?
kc
On 1/23/15 12:19 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Dealing with this might be an example:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd720.html
>
> It's not so much that adding some types wouldn't be helpful, but sometimes we just don't know... at least not yet... and perhaps never will.
>
> Also note that at least one class could be automatically inferred: owl:Thing. That's because anything imaginable is, at the very least, a thing.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 3:05 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [RDF AP] First draft validation language proposal
>>
>> I am having trouble getting across the idea that one might create data without
>> using explicit classes. I thought we could provide a DCT example, and started
>> one, but I think it needs to show more complexity.
>> The reason I think that is that members of the group are unable to conceive of
>> robust data without classes. So here's my start, and perhaps someone can
>> improve on it:
>>
>> @prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
>> @prefix ex: <http://example.com/> .
>> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>>
>> ex:A dct:title "Here's my book" ;
>> dct:creator [
>> dct:name "Karen" ;
>> foaf:website <http://kcoyle.net/me> ] .
>> dct:publisher <http://www.publisher.com> ;
>> dct:date "2015" .
>>
>> http://www.publisher.com dct:name "Good Books" .
>>
>> (I'm not sure that this illustrates what I intend it to.)
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 1/23/15 10:51 AM, Thomas Baker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:12:38AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> "Shapes" is a new term in this context, though, which has both
>>>> positive and negative aspects: positive because it carries less
>>>> baggage, negative because it will be unfamiliar and will have to be
>>>> learned.
>>>
>>> Yes - agreed. IMO the lack of baggage is good. The language will
>>> will have be learned, whatever it is called.
>>>
>>>> (Peter Patel-Schneider is dead set against anything that uses the
>>>> term "resource" because of potential conflicts with how "resource"
>>>> is defined in RDF.)
>>>
>>> I'm with Peter on that.
>>>
>>>> The group has talked quite a bit about what to call the "target" of
>>>> validation -- some favor using "class" because they anticipate in
>>>> their environments that every graph they address will be
>>>> distinguished as a particular class. Although I can see their point,
>>>> I'm not sure that the use of classes for open data will be as
>>>> extensive or reliable as it is in the enterprise systems that most
>>>> working group members work on. If we anticipate using
>>>> "un-constrained" RDA properties, then we do not have class
>>>> information to rely on to distinguish groups of triples for
>>>> validation.
>>>
>>> +1 to your position on this. I strongly feel that this new language
>>> should not depend on classes or in any way force the use of classes
>>> (i.e., of specific subclasses of Resource). The example of
>>> unconstrained RDA properties sounds good.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|