search

cygri / void

An RDF schema and associated documentation for expressing metadata about RDF datasets
http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
15 stars 1 forks source link

Void v2 - creation of void:isPartOf or such #32

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
As per my discussion on #swig:

http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2009-05-27.html#T16-08-26

Original issue reported on code.google.com by f...@fgiasson.com on 27 May 2009 at 3:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 27 May 2009 at 3:44

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
to summarise, the issue is that voiD's advocated use of dcterms:isPartOf to 
link a
document containing triples to a dataset (which is the superset of those 
triples), 
makes the term rather generic and vague, and it would be better to have a more
specific property ?

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 27 May 2009 at 6:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 29 May 2009 at 5:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Jun and I say that we should have a new property, but we don't yet suggest a 
good
name for it (I prefer something like void:semantics to void:isPartOf)

see:

http://blogs.talis.com/n2/archives/485

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 16 Jun 2009 at 12:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi Keith!

Good that you consider it. The name of the property is just the last step :)

So, you are proposing something like:

<some-instance> void:semantics <some-dataset>?

What would be the definition of such a property?

Thanks,

Fred

Original comment by f...@fgiasson.com on 16 Jun 2009 at 12:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi Fred, Well ... not quite ... the idea is still to link from the document to 
the 
dataset, but with more exact semantics. It would be similar to the 
log:semantics 
property used by CWM, which means something like "this document represents the 
semantics of this graph"

In this case, void:semantics would mean "this document represents the graph 
which is 
a part of this dataset".

I should explain - the use case that we had for suggesting dct:isPartOf was 
purely 
so that when you dereference a LOD URI, you have  a link that you can follow 
back to 
the dataset.

Maybe you have a different use case?

Keith

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 19 Jun 2009 at 7:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Comments about http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#semantics from the log 
vocabulary
is the following:

"The log:semantics of a document is the formula. achieved by parsing 
representation
of the document. For a document in Notation3, log:semantics is the 
log:parsedAsN3 of
the log:contents of the document. For a document in RDF/XML, it is parsed 
according
to the RDF/XML specification to yield an RDF formula a subclass of N3 
log:Formula).

[Aside: Philosophers will be distracted here into worrying about the meaning of
meaning. At least we didn't call this function "meaning"! In as much as N3 is 
used as
an interlingua for interoperability for different systems, this for an N3 based
system is the meaning expressed by a document.]

(Cwm knows how to go get a document and parse N3 and RDF/XML it in order to 
evaluate
this. Other languages for web documents may be defined whose N3 semantics are
therefore also calculable, and so they could be added in due course. See for 
example
GRDDL, RDFa, etc)"

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#semantics

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 23 Jun 2009 at 10:24

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Keith will take a look at how people are using dcterms:isPartOf and void:subset 
in
the existing voiD files.

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:07

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
If we really need a new property, please don't call it void:semantics, that's 
much too abstract, and the dreaded 
S-word should be avoided anyway.

I would prefer something descriptive, maybe void:inDataset or 
void:isPartOfDataset.

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 13 Aug 2009 at 10:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 27 Aug 2009 at 1:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Stuart Williams commented the following:

| Section 5.1:
| Hmmm... lots of scope for confussion.
|
| <document.rdf> dcterms:isPartOf <void.ttl#MyDataset> .
|
| Kind of curious from the point of view of having previously established
| sparql, uriLookup and dump endpoints why one would be remotely interested
| in <document.rdf> as being a part of the dataset (unless separately it was
| a dataset in its own right with it's own set of endpoints etc).

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 27 Aug 2009 at 8:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I'm now convinced we should have our own property here. Reason: Let's say you 
state the license of your dataset 
in your voiD file. Having a triple <> void:inDataset </void.ttl#MyDataset> in 
my documents allows an inference 
that the license applies to the triples in the documents. If it's just 
dcterms:isPartOf, then that inference cannot 
be made, because the weak semantics (“it's part of another resource”) 
really makes it hard to support an 
inference about licenses and IPR rights.

Candidate names: void:isPartOf, void:inDataset, void:isPartOfDataset. I vote 
for something that explicitly 
mentions "dataset", for clarity.

Original comment by cygan...@googlemail.com on 24 Oct 2009 at 11:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
group resolved this to use void:inDataset with rdfs:range void:Dataset and
rdfs:domain foaf:Document, Keith to check back with Tom re licensing and update 
guide 2.0

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 5 Nov 2009 at 12:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
OK. so we agree on void:inDataset with domain of foaf:Document and range of 
void:Dataset

we may want to take special care in the working of the rdfs:comment to ensure 
it is
clear how licenses apply.

I will ask other legally inclined people at Talis to see if they can offer 
input.

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 5 Nov 2009 at 12:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Proposal: as part of the documentation, say something like: "SHOULD not specify 
multiple void:inDataset for the 
same document. Rather, create a new void:Dataset that contains both as a 
subset, and link to that. Because then 
you can explicitly add stuff like license to the joint dataset"

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2009 at 4:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:11

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
swapped ownership with Keith re Issue 46 as per IRC chat

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 25 Jan 2010 at 12:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
updated guide re this, see http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/source/detail?r=95

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 22 Apr 2010 at 9:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
agreed to close on 2010-04-22, adding prop to voc still pending, see
http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/wiki/Vocabulary2Updates

Original comment by Michael.Hausenblas on 22 Apr 2010 at 11:30