Hi David Think it's more like: - they ARE 2 ontologies describing rdf resp. rdfs
Not meaning rdf or rdf IS A ontology. (Think rdf/rdfs/owl stack is full of such entanglements incl. selfreference; actually quite nice) Gr michel Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Böhms Senior Data Scientist T +31888663107 M +31630381220 E [email protected] Location This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Price Sent: donderdag 26 oktober 2017 19:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] shacl rule inference > On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:59, Richard Cyganiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:20, David Price <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Also, it’s very rare to see an *ontology* URI ending in #, Others may be >> able to produce examples but off the top of my head, I cannot think of any >> any customer, industry or standard ontology built that way. > > I’ll give you two examples that you might find surprising: > > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> a owl:Ontology ; > <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> a owl:Ontology ; Interesting and odd since the RDFS schema is by-defintiion not an OWL ontology since OWL concepts do not not exist in the RDFS-only world. Looking at it, I see that the RDF 1.1 spec only ever says the URI ending with # is a “namespace”. Nowhere does it say it’s an ontology, because that term is not defined in RDFS. At least the text is correct. Note that by the OWL 2 spec this “error” has been fixed and if you dereference the OWL 2 URI (with or without the #) you get: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> a owl:Ontology ; Cheers, David UK +44 7788 561308 US +1 336 283 0606 > > The practice went out of fashion shortly afterwards. OWL omitted the trailing > hash. Other popular early vocabularies such as DC, FOAF and SKOS all went for > slash namespaces. > > Not disagreeing with anything else you said. > > Richard > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
