schema.org的用法如何适合链接数据原则? [英] How does schema.org usage fit into Linked Data principles?
问题描述
我开始学习schema.org模式.我来自RDF/OWL社区.
令我惊讶的是，我确实找不到schema.org的RDFS或OWL词汇表.更具体地说，我意识到这只是一个描述模式的HTML页面.我还找到了该模式的RDFa表示形式.不确定它是否可以是合法的RDFS表示形式.所有这些让我有些困惑.
同时，我发现了以下作品: http://topbraid.org/schema/和解决方案
来自 http://schema. org/docs/datamodel.html :
schema.org的规范机器表示形式在RDFa中:
schema_org_rdfa.html
(有关其他表示，请参见我在Webmasters SE上的回答.)
此HTML + RDFa版本使用RDFS词汇.与任何其他RDF序列化一样好.如果您不喜欢RDFa，当然可以使用自己喜欢的转换器来获取Turtle，RDF/XML或您喜欢的任何东西.
I am starting to learn schema.org schema. I come from the RDF/OWL community.
To my surprise I could not indeed find an RDFS or OWL vocabulary representation of schema.org. More specifically, I realised that it was just a HTML page describing the schema. I also found an RDFa representation of the schema. Not sure that it can be a legal RDFS representation by the way. All of this got me a bit confused.
In the meantime I found the following works: http://topbraid.org/schema/ and http://schema.rdfs.org/.
Hence I have the following few questions:
1- Are both work achieving the same thing? if not what is the difference between the two?
1.2- What is their respective goal, and use case?
3- The URIs do not correspond to the URI of the ontology, isn’t it odd? How does that align itself with Linked Data principles?
4- Is schema.org fully aligned with Linked Data principle?
5- I find it odd to reference a schema that has no RDFs representation? How one can one use it in tools like Protégé for instance?
I would really appreciate to have some clarification over this.
From http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html:
The canonical machine representation of schema.org is in RDFa:
schema_org_rdfa.html
(See my answer on Webmasters SE for other representation.)
This HTML+RDFa version uses the RDFS vocabulary. It’s as good as any other RDF serialization. If you don’t like RDFa, you could of course use your favorite converter to get Turtle, RDF/XML, or whatever you prefer.
这篇关于schema.org的用法如何适合链接数据原则?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
