search

SEMICeu / ADMS-AP

This is the issue tracker for the maintenance of ADMS-AP
4 stars 1 forks source link

Wrong definition of the skos:hasTopConept property? #2

Open idimopoulos opened 6 years ago

idimopoulos commented 6 years ago

From adms definition:

<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#hasTopConcept">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty"/>
    <dc:identifier xml:lang="en">skos:hasTopConcept</dc:identifier>
    <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Concept that is the top level of the Theme Taxonomy.</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#"/>
    <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Theme Taxonomy - has Top Concept</rdfs:label>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept"/>
    <ns1:usageNote xml:lang="en">Recommended Property - 0..n</ns1:usageNote>
  </rdf:Property>

In the above property, the range is declared as literal in adms. Also, domain is declared as a dcat:Concept. However, according to https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#concepts and https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#schemes the hasTopConcept is a property of dcat:ConceptScheme and the range of the property is of dcat:Concept.

Other sources: https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#hasTopConcept: The range of the hasTopConcept is a Concept, which is an object.

Am I missing something? It seems to me as a wrong definition, sorry if I am wrong.

makxdekkers commented 6 years ago

@idimopoulos You are absolutely right. This is a bug that needs to be corrected. In the specification, the domain is correctly stated as skos:ConceptScheme but with the incorrect range of Literal.

akuckartz commented 6 years ago

:+1:

How can such errors be avoided in the future?

makxdekkers commented 6 years ago

A sensible way to avoid such errors would be not to include domain and range axioms for properties defined elsewhere.

EmidioStani commented 6 years ago

Using Protege it is possible to import axioms (classes, properties) from other ontologies (opened in the same windows) which could have avoided the problem, see:

https://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/P4MoveAxioms

makxdekkers commented 6 years ago

Issue to be resolved in the next major semantic release as there are implications for interoperability if there are implementations that use the incorrect range.

claudiu-cristea commented 5 years ago

@makxdekkers is this resolved, or is there a PR for this?

makxdekkers commented 5 years ago

@claudiu-cristea I do not know ; I haven't been involved in this work for over a year. Probably the people who are now responsible for the maintenance of ADMS can answer your questions.

addragan commented 5 years ago

@claudiu-cristea we are discussing having a release on ADMS this autumn. We will get back with a detailed planning to the Working Group and evaluate and prioritise all open issues. Meanwhile, please contribute with your comments or new requests in the ADMS repository and they will be taken into account for the next release.

claudiu-cristea commented 5 years ago

@addragan thank you.