On 4/22/11 12:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Hi Nathan, Kingsley:
My point is that I want anybody using any ontology / annotation tool to
immediately spot the cardinality recommendation. rdfs:label is displayed by all
/ most tools.
Yes, but time to stop accepting in appropriate patterns :-)
rdfs:comment exists for a reason. Linked Data is better that OS and
programming lang. locked code, thus we have a massive opportunity to
also finally make "comments" useful etc..
if I hide it in rdfs:comment, it is not as accessible. Defining an
owl:AnnotationProperty will be completely invisible in most tools.
Okay, so make gr:label, then place in an owl:equivalentProperty relation
with rdfs:label. Then via its rdfs:comment value expose a distilled
version of this conversation :-)
I actually think that six extra characters (n..m) for the property labels should not
really irritate a human-reader when faced with a "raw data view". Again, any
data that includes e.g. intermediate nodes for higher arity relationships will look
pretty much machine-code style without context-dependent rendering/consolidation.
As for the classes, I think we are all in agreement now, e.g.
URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#DeliveryChargeSpecification
rdfs:label Delivery charge specification
For the pre-defined individuals, I think that the class name as additional
context does more good than harm:
URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#MasterCard
rdfs:label MasterCard (payment method)
So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality info in the
label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is the better choice as
compared to the alternatives.
If you add gr:label to GoodRelations we're set :-)
It is also easy to create graph of cleansed rdfs:labels for goodrelations based
on a simple regex.
Not good. We want to keep the logic in the data, via triples. Thus,
traditional coding and string manipulation heuristics (regex and
friends) -- .
Kingsley
Martin
On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Nathan wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/22/11 7:36 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
See replies inline ;-)
Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that the
rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web developers
sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a method should look like
a piece of code because it is addressed to programmers. I refuse to believe
that Web developers understand better pseudo code than natural language.
I will finally give in to use English spacing and capitalization for
rdfs:labels in GoodRelations, e.g. use
"Business entity"@en for gr:BusinessEntity etc.
But I will keep the cardinality recommendation in the rdfs:label of properties,
e.g.
serial number (0..*) for gr:serialNumber
Why not move that to rdfs:comment?
+1 seems more like a comment or a description from where I'm standing too,
rather than a label.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
