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
|