Add owner to solid terms #52
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With @TallTed 's changes, I think this is mostly good, but since there isn't consensus on solid/specification#265 yet, I think the domain should be removed before merging this. Or we might just wait for consensus on that.
|
@kjetilk, following @TallTed's suggestion, I changed the domain of |
solid-terms.ttl
Outdated
| dc:issued "2021-05-19"^^xsd:date ; | ||
| rdfs:comment "A person or social entity that is considered to have control, rights, and responsibilities over a data storage."@en ; | ||
| rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms#> ; | ||
| rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Setting the domain to rdfs:Resource is an information-free thing to do, as that is true of every property. Please remove the line. (It is like saying A sameAs A, or A a Thing, or A a Resource)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@matthieubosquet I don't adding information-free triples to things to be good practice. Is there a reason you wanted that triple in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@timbl at first, I was unsure about it and just followed @TallTed’s suggestion who might have specific reasons to express.
For me, explicitly stating that the domain of a property is rdfs:Resource shows to speakers of the vocabulary that the context in which solid:owner can be used has been discussed and tells them unequivocally that this property can be used in statements where the subject is any valid RDF subject node.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By definition all classes are subclasses of rdfs:Resource and so that context is always present.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@csarven I understand that stating: ex:propertyX rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource . is unnecessary to infer that subject nodes of statements where ex:propertyX is the predicate are instances of the class of everything, namely: rdfs:Resource.
But does stating ex:propertyX a rdf:Property . entail ex:propertyX rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .?
I can’t really remember reading such axiom (starting from rdf schema).
So for sure it doesn’t entail further inferred triples, but I don’t think that not saying it is exactly the same thing as saying it (😄 I appreciate I might have easily missed something, I learn something new every time I read the RDF specs).
In any case, following that logic: asserting that something is an rdf:Property when it has an rdfs:range is redundant, so why assert it? To me, it’s simply nice to assert property type statements for consumers of a vocabulary, just because it makes the term definition more obvious and user friendly. When I read a vocabulary, I scan through it for specific info including type, domain and range statements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My feeling is that explicitly stating rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource makes it clear that this is what was intended by the ontology author(s), and that rdfs:domain was not accidentally left out (for instance, where it would have been something more restricted than rdfs:Resource, had the author(s) included it).
In other words, I think that setting rdfs:domain to rdfs:Resource is NOT an information-free thing to do, though it may seem so to a sophisticated observer (who knows that intentionally leaving the rdfs:domain declaration out has the same effect as making this explicit declaration) or upon casual observation.
Add the notion of owner to the Solid terms ontology as per solid/specification#264.