On 1/23/14, 4:01 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> So in my opinion, as is everything in the mail of course, this is even 
> worse. Now instead of 1600 properties, you have 1600 * (number of 
> languages +1) properties. And you're going to see them appearing in 
> uses of the ontology. Either stick with your opaque identifiers or 
> pick a language for the readable ones, and best practice would be 
> English, but doing both is a disaster in the making.
Actually, it's more than that. Because, as you see below, for each 
property there are two URIs, a reg:name, and an rdfs:label. The "lexical 
URI" is based on the reg:name not the rdfs:label. So that makes one 
opaque identifier, one lexical identifer, and two display forms. The 
reg:name is camel case and condensed, as compared to the label, which is 
space-delimited words. Both have language designations.

The rdfs:label is written as a verb phrase, with either "has" or "is" -- 
a form that I generally find annoying in practice -- while the reg:name 
is "noun-ish." I'm sympathetic to the "has" form in some situations, 
such as when reading a triple as a statement, but the verb-enhanced form 
would seem odd on an input form, for example. Having both could be 
useful, but since RDF doesn't recognize label types it only works in a 
closed world.

<!--Property: has address of the corporate body-->
<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
   <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="" />
   <reg:status rdf:resource="" />
   <reg:name xml:lang="en">addressOfTheCorporateBody</reg:name>
   <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">has address of the corporate body</rdfs:label>
   <skos:definition xml:lang="en">Relates a corporate body to the address of a corporate body's headquarters or offices, or an e-mail or internet address for the body.</skos:definition>
   <rdf:type rdf:resource="" />
   <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="" />
   <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="" />
   <owl:sameAs rdf:resource="" />


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet