OWL version of the schemas

[Peter Mika]

Hi All,

We have posted an official version of the schema.org schemas at

http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl

This allows the schema.org schemas to be used with all OWL-aware tools
such as editors, validators etc., as well as to create mappings to other
Semantic Web schemas.

We would like to acknowledge the Linked Data Research Center at DERI, in
particular Michael Hausenblas and Richard Cyganiak, for their work on
schemas.rdfs.org, and for their help in developing the OWL schema for
schema.org.

Peter

[Kingsley Idehen]

Peter,

Great!

All, also note that we are cross linking schema.org with existing shared
ontologies and vocabularies via an effort in our own namespace. Anyone
can contribute to this effort by doing the following:

1. Open up a Google Spreadsheet document
2. Create a 3-col work area
3. Place "<" and ">" around HTTP URI based Names that serve as Reference
Values
4. Place a schema.org URI in Cell1 (the Subject or Entity slot)
5. Place an OWL property in Cell2 (the Predicate or Attribute slot)
6. Place a Reference Value or Literal in Cell3 (the Object or Value
slot); don't worry about data type matters at this stage, this is about
cross-linking ontologies/vocabulary terms
7. Save
8. Announce existing of your mapping spreadsheet here or via Twitter or
even via LOD mailing list.

Do the above and schema.org will rapidly be meshed with a plethora of
existing ontologies and vocabularies, and this will happen in ultra
scalable fashion.

Links:

1.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Frdfs%2FRealEstateAgent%23this
-- page about RealEstateAgent showing links to other ontologies via OWL
relations

2.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http://schema.org/Organization%23this
-- page showing Organization definition that uses an OWL relation to
associate it with FOAF terms

3.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2Fdocs%2Fschemaorg.owl
-- page allowing to explore (follow-your-nose pattern) Schema.org
definitions

4.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Frdfs%2F
-- page allowing you to explore our mapper ontology that connects
Schema.org with terms from other ontologies (note: this is still of WIP
status since there are many more mappings to come).

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 6/27/11 12:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 1. Open up a Google Spreadsheet document
> 2. Create a 3-col work area
> 3. Place "<" and ">" around HTTP URI based Names that serve as
> Reference Values
> 4. Place a schema.org URI in Cell1 (the Subject or Entity slot)
> 5. Place an OWL property in Cell2 (the Predicate or Attribute slot)
> 6. Place a Reference Value or Literal in Cell3 (the Object or Value
> slot); don't worry about data type matters at this stage, this is
> about cross-linking ontologies/vocabulary terms
> 7. Save
> 8. Announce existing of your mapping spreadsheet here or via Twitter
> or even via LOD mailing list.

Should have been:

8. Announce *existence* of your mapping spreadsheet here or via Twitter

or even via LOD mailing list.

--

[Holger Knublauch]

Sounds good. 3 quick questions:

- What is the recommended version that schema.org consumers should be using now - the rdfs.org one or the "official" one? I guess the official one, assuming that the consortium is serious about keeping it alive?

- Right now all ranges and domains are owl:unionOf bnodes, even if there is just one value. Could this be changed to follow the usual practice of only using unions if needed?

- Is there any metadata in your system that allows you to distinguish single-valued properties from multi-valued ones? If yes, could this be used to mark single-values properties as owl:FunctionalProperty? This is mainly to support generic UI tools in building appropriate user interfaces.

Thanks
Holger

[Michael Hausenblas]

>- What is the recommended version that schema.org consumers should be using now - the rdfs.org one or the "official" one?

>  I guess the official one, assuming that the consortium is serious about keeping it alive?

That is my understanding, yes. Note that we'll update Schema.RDFS.org very soon to reflect this, that is, pointing out that the official RDF-based vocabulary is now directly available via Schema.org in OWL.

We are in fact about to extend Schema.RDFS.org, refocusing the project in the sense that the original goal ('to provide an RDF-based version of the Schema.org terms' has been achieved) and turn it into a Schema.org support activity. This means we are:

• offering examples (in a variety of serializations incl. RDFa, JSON, microdata, etc.)
  
• offering a collection of mappings from widely used SW vocabularies such as Dublin Core, GoodRelations, FOAF, SIOC, DBpediaOnt etc. to Schema.org terms
  
• offering tools (and tool listings) to process Schema.org-based data
  
• offering tutorials
  

Note that this is a community effort, so everyone is welcome to contribute to it via https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/ - just send in a pull request or file an issue if you want to point out a problem or have a feature request.

Cheers,

Michael

[Peter Mika]

Hi Holger,

Thanks for you feedback!

> - What is the recommended version that schema.org consumers should be using now - the rdfs.org one or the "official" one? I guess the official one, assuming that the consortium is serious about keeping it alive?

The version hosted on schema.org is always generated from the latest
source of the schemas and therefore should always be in sync with the
human readable documentation. That said, I have discussed this Michael
and Richard from DERI, and their intention is also to keep everything in
sync, so there should not be any discrepancies. Further, schema.rdfs.org
provides the schemas in other formats and provides some excellent
additional information on tools, etc. that might be useful for
publishers and developers.

> - Right now all ranges and domains are owl:unionOf bnodes, even if there is just one value. Could this be changed to follow the usual practice of only using unions if needed?

We will fix this, thanks! Possible feedback also to the developers of
the OWL API ;)

> - Is there any metadata in your system that allows you to distinguish single-valued properties from multi-valued ones? If yes, could this be used to mark single-values properties as owl:FunctionalProperty? This is mainly to support generic UI tools in building appropriate user interfaces.

Good point. At this point we don't have this information, but we will
consider adding it.

Cheers,
Peter