Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

publish the Sinopia vocabulary in RDF #311

Open
briesenberg07 opened this issue Nov 18, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

publish the Sinopia vocabulary in RDF #311

briesenberg07 opened this issue Nov 18, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@briesenberg07
Copy link

briesenberg07 commented Nov 18, 2020

  • An RDF representation of the Sinopia Vocabulary will go farther than human-readable term descriptions in answering questions about how Sinopia RDF resource templates work
  • An RDF representation could help inform ShEx, SHACL, or other validation code to assist in encoding Sinopia RDF resource templates
@michelleif michelleif changed the title Requesting RDF representation of the Sinopia vocabulary publish the Sinopia vocabulary in RDF Aug 3, 2021
@michelleif
Copy link
Contributor

use OWL?

@briesenberg07
Copy link
Author

Curious to hear from the developers on this.

I wonder if RDF Schema might do the job for the Sinopia Vocabulary. But this is a result of my own limited experience--we have published a handful of local classes and properties here, and RDF Schema has been sufficient for modeling most everything up to now. I think we've just used a very small handful of OWL terms like sameAs and versionInfo, and most of these in resource descriptions, not vocabs.

I do note that the Sinopia vocab includes some terms like http://sinopia.io/vocabulary/propertyType/literal, http://sinopia.io/vocabulary/propertyType/resource, and http://sinopia.io/vocabulary/propertyType/uri that seem like they may be more like skos:Concepts than rdfs:Classes (? but I'm not sure about this).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants