feature/vocabularies Added IRI for all referenced ontologies #55
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Vinnl
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2019
|
|
||
| RDF and RDFS are the foundation on which all other vocabularies are built. They enable the description of a graph of [resources](rdfs:Resource), each identified by an IRI. | ||
|
|
||
| RDF graphs are based on the notion of [statement](rdf:Statement): a statement can be compared to a very simple sentence <subject, verb, complement>, e.g. `Charlie is a Person`. In the RDF terminology, we say that a [statement](rdf:Statement) has an [subject](rdf:subject) (the resource the statement is about), a [property](rdf:property) (the verb of the sentence, defining a characteristic of the subject) and an [object](rdf:object) (the value for the property for the subject). Therefore, the sentence `Charlie is a Person` could be expressed in RDF as `ex:Charlie rdf:type ex:Person`, where `<http://example.org/ns#Charlie>` is the subject, `rdf:type` the property, and `<http://example.org/ns#Person>` the object. Subject and object are necessarily individuals identified with an IRI, while the object is either an individual with an IRI, or a literal with a value (e.g. string or int). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you mean "Subject and predicate are necessarily...identified with an IRI"?
|
|
||
| ## Description | ||
|
|
||
| The User Interface ontology allows the definition of forms for processing RDF model data, and include a bootstrap form for editing forms. It allows user interface hints such as background colors, can be associated with objects and classes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think Tim mentioned that this is a rather incomplete and ad-hoc vocabulary, and even had different versions available - so we might want to warn a bit against using it?
Then again, I'm not sure of the "official" status of the others, so maybe just let readers decide for themselves whether they need this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you're right: featuring these vocabularies on this page gives them a certain "aura" of official recommendation which could be misleading. I'll add a "status" label to each, to identify the stable ones from the more experimental
NSeydoux
force-pushed
the
feature/vocabularies
branch
from
4bb96d8
to
82a00a1
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related to #21
All the vocabularies are now associated with their IRI, and there is a first draft of highlight for RDF and RDFS.