Join GitHub today
What is the difference between schema:name and rdfs:label? #1762
The semantics are similar - enough that in practice they probably mean the same in most cases.
An advantage to using
On the other hand, generic RDF processors are much more likely to recogise
Perhaps we should do this for a few basic features of schema. /@danbri ??
added a commit
Oct 6, 2017
The idea of a 'name' is slightly stronger than that of a label, so I'd suggest that there could be rdfs:labels that aren't schema:names. I've added a subPropertyOf assertion to the definition file that says this. The name property also means the same thing as dc:title too, which is also "A name given to the resource.", so I've added an 'equivalentProperty' link there too. None of this has UI in the site yet, but it is still useful to document the basic situation in our schemas.
To answer the question about advantages of 'using the former instead of the latter', afaik there are no large scale schema.org implementations that currently apply multi-namespace RDFS inference or that will understand rdfs:label in place of schema:name. But it depends what you're doing, which application, etc. I can say at least for Google, we aren't currently likely to understand rdfs:label in places where we expect schema:name.