https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59680
--- Comment #7 from Emw <[email protected]> --- I think it would help to have this request reviewed by someone with detailed knowledge of the RDFS and OWL W3C specifications. Markus Krötzsch might be willing. I am concerned about Example C from the original request. It sets making subproperties of P31 (instance of) a motivation for this property. P31 has the semantics of rdf:type per community consensus. It is also in the RDF export as such: see wikidata-instances.nt.gz in http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/20140526/. That export uses OWL. Of the OWL varieties, OWL 2 DL tends to be preferred. However, according to the OWL 2 Structural Specification, section 5.3, "IRIs from the reserved vocabulary other than owl:topObjectProperty and owl:bottomObjectProperty MUST NOT be used to identify object properties in an OWL 2 DL ontology." [1] The specification goes on to explain that IRIs prefixed with rdf and rdfs, e.g. rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf, are among the reserved vocabulary. A 2007 paper by Boris Motik, an editor of OWL 2, explains why making statements about the built-in vocabulary is such a problem. Simply put, statements like "x rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type" and "y rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf" would not be valid in OWL 2 DL, the preferred W3C language for Semantic Web ontologies. Subproperties would be very useful, but enabling non-standard semantics would outweigh that benefit. 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Object_Properties 2. http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/Boris.Motik/pubs/motik07metamodeling-journal.pdf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
