Leo and Kingsley, Here are some replies (thanks for the
dialog):
* Kingsley wrote: "... there are a lot of raw URIs in the
scope of the viewer. You alleviate this problem by adding more
rdfs:label, skos:prefLabel etc.. relations i.e., I would have
a label and comment (at the very least) for every entity
described in these documents."
There actually is a label, a description and much more for
each entity. The difference is that the ontology uses its own
namespace, and not the standard ones. And, I have avoided
importing the Dublin Core and SKOS RDFs, because you then get
all the concepts from those schemas. In a comment on the
ontology, I discuss what I did not map from Dublin Core and
SKOS, and why.
I was trying to make a succinct ontology that listed the
"recommended" properties that should be provided for a
reusable ontology. (Which also means that I will be adding
more details - like documenting the competency questions for
the ontology. I just started with Dublin Core and SKOS.)
Also, there are two sides to the coin of using the standard
annotations. If you have a tool that reads/writes the
standard properties, then all is good. However, if you are
creating your own application, you have to remember when
writing queries (or hand-editing ontologies, etc.) that rdfs
is the prefix for label, skos is the prefix for prefLabel,
etc. I was hoping to simplify this. I have some customers
doing their own ontologies that get confused by all the
namespaces.