Hi Nathan, Kingsley:
My point is that I want anybody using any ontology / annotation tool to
immediately spot the cardinality recommendation. rdfs:label is displayed by all
/ most tools. if I hide it in rdfs:comment, it is not as accessible. Defining
an owl:AnnotationProperty will be completely invisible in most tools.
I actually think that six extra characters (n..m) for the property labels
should not really irritate a human-reader when faced with a "raw data view".
Again, any data that includes e.g. intermediate nodes for higher arity
relationships will look pretty much machine-code style without
context-dependent rendering/consolidation.
As for the classes, I think we are all in agreement now, e.g.
URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#DeliveryChargeSpecification
rdfs:label Delivery charge specification
For the pre-defined individuals, I think that the class name as additional
context does more good than harm:
URI http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#MasterCard
rdfs:label MasterCard (payment method)
So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality info in the
label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is the better choice as
compared to the alternatives.
It is also easy to create graph of cleansed rdfs:labels for goodrelations based
on a simple regex.
Martin
On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 4/22/11 7:36 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>>> See replies inline ;-)
>>>> Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that the
>>>> rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web
>>>> developers sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a method
>>>> should look like a piece of code because it is addressed to programmers. I
>>>> refuse to believe that Web developers understand better pseudo code than
>>>> natural language.
>>> I will finally give in to use English spacing and capitalization for
>>> rdfs:labels in GoodRelations, e.g. use
>>>
>>> "Business entity"@en for gr:BusinessEntity etc.
>>>
>>> But I will keep the cardinality recommendation in the rdfs:label of
>>> properties, e.g.
>>>
>>> serial number (0..*) for gr:serialNumber
>> Why not move that to rdfs:comment?
>
> +1 seems more like a comment or a description from where I'm standing too,
> rather than a label.
>
