Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Paul Tyson]

Part of the fun (and ease) of RDF is being able to make stuff up as you go 
along. But, as others have said, when you move past the stage of learning and 
experimentation, and make your work persistent or reusable, you'll want to be 
more formal.

The linked data patterns book [1] has several ideas for uris.

Regards,
--Paul

[1] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 12, 2017, at 13:24, Dick Murray  wrote:
> 
> It is for this reason that I use  and as a nod to my Cisco
> engineer days and example.org... :-)
> 
> As Martynas Jusevičius said give it a little thought.
> 
> On 12 April 2017 at 17:37, Martynas Jusevičius 
> wrote:
> 
>> It would not be an error as long it is a valid URI.
>> 
>> Conceptually non-HTTP URIs go against Linked Data principles because
>> normally they cannot be dereferenced.
>> 
>> Therefore it makes sense to give it a little thought and choose an
>> http:// namespace that you control.
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Laura Morales  wrote:
 I use "urn:ex:..." in a lot of my test code (short for "urn:example:").
 
 Then the predicate is "urn:ex:time/now" or "urn:ex:time/duration" or
 whatever you need...
>>> 
>>> would it be an error (perhaps conceptually) to use "ex:...", essentially
>> removing the "urn:" scheme?
>> 

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Dick Murray]

It is for this reason that I use  and as a nod to my Cisco
engineer days and example.org... :-)

As Martynas Jusevičius said give it a little thought.

On 12 April 2017 at 17:37, Martynas Jusevičius 
wrote:

> It would not be an error as long it is a valid URI.
>
> Conceptually non-HTTP URIs go against Linked Data principles because
> normally they cannot be dereferenced.
>
> Therefore it makes sense to give it a little thought and choose an
> http:// namespace that you control.
>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Laura Morales  wrote:
> >> I use "urn:ex:..." in a lot of my test code (short for "urn:example:").
> >>
> >> Then the predicate is "urn:ex:time/now" or "urn:ex:time/duration" or
> >> whatever you need...
> >
> > would it be an error (perhaps conceptually) to use "ex:...", essentially
> removing the "urn:" scheme?
>

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Martynas Jusevičius]

It would not be an error as long it is a valid URI.

Conceptually non-HTTP URIs go against Linked Data principles because
normally they cannot be dereferenced.

Therefore it makes sense to give it a little thought and choose an
http:// namespace that you control.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Laura Morales  wrote:
>> I use "urn:ex:..." in a lot of my test code (short for "urn:example:").
>>
>> Then the predicate is "urn:ex:time/now" or "urn:ex:time/duration" or
>> whatever you need...
>
> would it be an error (perhaps conceptually) to use "ex:...", essentially 
> removing the "urn:" scheme?

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Laura Morales]

> I use "urn:ex:..." in a lot of my test code (short for "urn:example:").
> 
> Then the predicate is "urn:ex:time/now" or "urn:ex:time/duration" or
> whatever you need...

would it be an error (perhaps conceptually) to use "ex:...", essentially 
removing the "urn:" scheme?

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Dick Murray]

I use "urn:ex:..." in a lot of my test code (short for "urn:example:").

Then the predicate is "urn:ex:time/now" or "urn:ex:time/duration" or
whatever you need...

On 12 April 2017 at 09:49, Laura Morales  wrote:

> > The question is a bit unclear. If there is no existing vocabulary that
> > you can resp. want to reuse, then you have to use your own vocabulary
> > which basically just means to use your own URIs for the predicates.
>
> Right, so let's say I don't want to define any new vocabulary, but I just
> want to use some predicates. For example a predicate called "predicate1"
> and "predicate2". These are not meant to be shared, I use them for whatever
> reason and I take full responsibility to shooting myself in the foot. Is
> there any "catch-all" or "default/undefined" vocabulary that I can use? I
> mean something like a default vocabulary that parses as valid URIs, but
> whose meaning is undefined (= the interpretation is left to the user)?
> Something like "  " and "
>  "... I wonder if I should use "
> <_:predicate1> " but I'm not sure?!
>

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[A. Soroka]

Perhaps what might be helpful is making up your own _namespace_. Call it 
"http://lauramorales.com/data/; (or use some domain you own). Then you can mint 
predicates as easily as:

http://lauramorales.com/data/myFirstPredicate
http://lauramorales.com/data/theNextPredicate
etc.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

> On Apr 12, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/04/17 09:49, Laura Morales wrote:
>>> The question is a bit unclear. If there is no existing vocabulary that
>>> you can resp. want to reuse, then you have to use your own vocabulary
>>> which basically just means to use your own URIs for the predicates.
>> 
>> Right, so let's say I don't want to define any new vocabulary, but I just 
>> want to use some predicates. For example a predicate called "predicate1" and 
>> "predicate2". These are not meant to be shared, I use them for whatever 
>> reason and I take full responsibility to shooting myself in the foot. Is 
>> there any "catch-all" or "default/undefined" vocabulary that I can use? I 
>> mean something like a default vocabulary that parses as valid URIs, but 
>> whose meaning is undefined (= the interpretation is left to the user)? 
>> Something like "  " and " 
>>  "... I wonder if I should use " 
>> <_:predicate1> " but I'm not sure?!
>> 
> 
> Just use a predicate - make up a URI.
> 
>    .
> 
> Vocabularies are a way to organise predicates (etc) - basic RDF has URIs for 
> predicates, no notion of vocabularies.
> 
>> I wonder if I should use " <_:predicate1> " but I'm not 
>> sure?!
> 
> It has to be a URI and "_" isn't a valid URI scheme.
> 
>Andy
> 
> (RIOT treats <_:> as blank nodes but they still have to be in a legal 
> position.)

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Andy Seaborne]

On 12/04/17 09:49, Laura Morales wrote:

The question is a bit unclear. If there is no existing vocabulary that
you can resp. want to reuse, then you have to use your own vocabulary
which basically just means to use your own URIs for the predicates.


Right, so let's say I don't want to define any new vocabulary, but I just want to use some predicates. For example a predicate called "predicate1" and "predicate2". These are not 
meant to be shared, I use them for whatever reason and I take full responsibility to shooting myself in the foot. Is there any "catch-all" or "default/undefined" vocabulary that I can 
use? I mean something like a default vocabulary that parses as valid URIs, but whose meaning is undefined (= the interpretation is left to the user)? Something like " 
 " and "  "... I wonder if I should use " <_:predicate1> 
" but I'm not sure?!



Just use a predicate - make up a URI.

   .

Vocabularies are a way to organise predicates (etc) - basic RDF has URIs 
for predicates, no notion of vocabularies.



I wonder if I should use " <_:predicate1> " but I'm not sure?!


It has to be a URI and "_" isn't a valid URI scheme.

Andy

(RIOT treats <_:> as blank nodes but they still have to be in a 
legal position.)

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Laura Morales]

> The question is a bit unclear. If there is no existing vocabulary that
> you can resp. want to reuse, then you have to use your own vocabulary
> which basically just means to use your own URIs for the predicates.

Right, so let's say I don't want to define any new vocabulary, but I just want 
to use some predicates. For example a predicate called "predicate1" and 
"predicate2". These are not meant to be shared, I use them for whatever reason 
and I take full responsibility to shooting myself in the foot. Is there any 
"catch-all" or "default/undefined" vocabulary that I can use? I mean something 
like a default vocabulary that parses as valid URIs, but whose meaning is 
undefined (= the interpretation is left to the user)? Something like " 
 " and "  
"... I wonder if I should use " <_:predicate1> " but 
I'm not sure?!

Re: Predicates with no vocabulary

[Lorenz B.]

The question is a bit unclear. If there is no existing vocabulary that
you can resp. want to reuse, then you have to use your own vocabulary
which basically just means to use your own URIs for the predicates.

> I'd like to write some nquads using predicates that are not defined in any 
> already-existing vocabulary. Moreover I don't want to create a new vocabulary 
> (I'm just interested in a bunch of custom predicates for personal use). 
> What's the correct way to do this? Should I use _:mypredicate or :predicate 
> for example?
>
> ++ Sorry for asking generic questions unrelated to Jena, but I don't
> ++ know of any other place to ask such questions. I've tried
> ++ #swig on freenode but nobody every talks in there.
>
-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

Predicates with no vocabulary

[Laura Morales]

I'd like to write some nquads using predicates that are not defined in any 
already-existing vocabulary. Moreover I don't want to create a new vocabulary 
(I'm just interested in a bunch of custom predicates for personal use). What's 
the correct way to do this? Should I use _:mypredicate or :predicate for 
example?

++ Sorry for asking generic questions unrelated to Jena, but I don't
++ know of any other place to ask such questions. I've tried
++ #swig on freenode but nobody every talks in there.