allow alternatives of rdfs:label, rdfs:comment

[VladimirAlexiev]

https://github.com/dbpedia/Archivo/blob/master/shacl-library/LODE.ttl checks for rdfs:label, rdfs:comment. But some ontologies use alternatives:

• of rdfs:label : skos:prefLabel, dc:title, dct:title, schema:name
• of rdfs:comment: dc:description, dct:description, schema:description

Please allow these as alteranative props in the SHACL shapes

Example about https://databus.dbpedia.org/ontologies/vocab.getty.edu/ontology/:

• shaclReport on lodeMetadata
• complains about label

  sh:focusNode <http://vocab.getty.edu/ontology#ulan1316_principal_was> ;
  sh:resultMessage "rdfs:label is missing or is no Literal"@en ;

• We got

  skos:prefLabel "ulan1316_principal_was";
  dc:title "principal was - person";

• complains about comment

  sh:focusNode <http://vocab.getty.edu/ontology#aat2216_require> ;
  sh:resultMessage "rdfs:comment is missing or is no Literal"@en ;

• We got

  dct:description """things - require - things [in order to exist or work].
  Example: broderie anglaise requires eyelets; compact disc players require compact discs""" .

• generatedDocu with LODE looks fine, because it interprets skos:prefLabel and dct:description

[yum-yab]

Hey, thanks for the Feedback and for using Archivo!

The base for this test is the LODE documentation and there they do not mention skos:prefLabel, dct:description (just dc:description) or any other alternative you mentioned.

As far as I can see in the docu the label/comment alternatives are not displayed.

But since it gets properly displayed for the Parrot documentation you use maybe you can write a similar shacl test for the requirements of the parrot documentation as an alternative for the LODE Metadata test, create a pull request and I add it to Archivo.

Regards, Denis

[VladimirAlexiev]

You are right, I see it now.

I patched LODE to handle those and schema.org props for https://rawcdn.githack.com/euBusinessGraph/eubg-data/master/ontology/doc.html

But I guess that patch never made it.

[kurzum]

@VladimirAlexiev we would close your issue. There are only two ways this will improve:

• LODE allows more props and we update the SHACL Test
• you contribute a SHACL test to the library testing whatever you think should be tested....