Difference between revisions of "Template:Concept scheme relation"
m (just set properties (TODO layout)) |
m (use #set_internal; draft output) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <includeonly><!-- | + | <includeonly><!-- |
| − | -->{{#if:{{{scheme|}}}|{{#set: skos:inScheme={{{scheme | + | -->{{#if:{{{scheme|}}} <!-- |
| − | + | THEN-->|{{#set: skos:inScheme={{{scheme}}}}}<!-- | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | TODO: do empty values work out? | |
| − | --></includeonly><noinclude> | + | |
| + | -->{{#set_internal: concept constraint<!-- | ||
| + | -->|constraint defined in scheme={{{scheme}}} | ||
| + | |property domain={{{property domain|}}} | ||
| + | |property range={{{property range|}}} | ||
| + | |cardinality={{{property cardinality|}}}<!-- | ||
| + | |is instance of=?correct? | ||
| + | --> | ||
| + | }}<!-- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ////////////////////////////// | ||
| + | // output (TODO adjust correct links/texts) | ||
| + | ////////////////////////////// | ||
| + | --><nowiki></nowiki> | ||
| + | |||
| + | For scheme [[{{{scheme}}}]] the concept “{{PAGENAME}}” is constrained by: {{#if:{{{property cardinality|}}} | | ||
| + | * [[Help:Cardinality | cardinality]] {{Cardinality from value to explained | {{{property cardinality|}}} }} }}<!-- | ||
| + | -->{{#if:{{{property domain|}}} | | ||
| + | * [[rdfs:domain]]: {{{property domain|}}} }}<!-- | ||
| + | -->{{#if:{{{property domain|}}} | | ||
| + | * [[rdfs:range]]: {{{property range|}}} }}<!-- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ELSE no {{{scheme}}} given | ||
| + | -->|<nowiki></nowiki> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The concept “{{PAGENAME}}” seems to have constraints but the parameter “scheme” is missing. Please add it! }}<!-- | ||
| + | |||
| + | --></includeonly><noinclude> | ||
{{Documentation}} | {{Documentation}} | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
Revision as of 10:31, 26 October 2012
Template documentationContents
Background
Originally, the inScheme relation was part of the general relations (see template: Concept relation). It was separated, because we desire to express constraints (range, domain, cardinality) about concepts. The complication here is that consensus exists to define "base-schemes" with as few constraints as possible, which are then re-used in more constraining schemes. This means that constraints for a concept are not universal properties of the concept itself, but rather of their re-use.
Usage
On Concept pages (using Form:Concept) the following can be repeated any number of times (bold=mandatory parameter):
{{Concept scheme relation
| scheme = <!-- page name of a concept scheme -->
| property domain =<!-- a domain constraint defined within that scheme -->
| property range =<!-- a range constraint defined within that scheme -->
| property cardinality =<!-- one value of: "0..1", "0..n", "1..1", "1..n" -->
}}
Parameter in detail:
scheme= age name of a concept scheme
property domain = if present concept is a property, a domain constraint defined within that scheme. A domain defines the class of subject resources, to which a property may be applied. The constraints of the original scheme are most relevant, but other schemes may define other constraints. This maps to rdfs:domain if the skos concept is applied as an rdfs/owl ontology.
property range = if present concept is a property, a range constraint defined within that scheme. A range declares the class or datatype of the values or objects that are assigned to a property (the right side in the triple). The constraints of the original scheme are most relevant, but other schemes may define other constraints. This maps to rdfs:range[1] if the skos concept is applied as an rdfs/owl ontology.
property cardinality = if present concept is a property, a cardinality constraint defined within that scheme. Values are:
- 0..1 (optional single occurrence)
- 0..n (optional multiple occurrence)
- 1..1 (mandatory single occurrence)
- 1..n (mandatory multiple occurrence).
The constraints of the original scheme are most relevant, but other schemes may define other constraints. For example "1..1" maps to owl:minCardinality "1" owl:maxCardinality "1" if the skos concept is applied as an rdfs/owl ontology.
- ↑ is rdfs:range correct? --Andreas Plank 17:32, 25 October 2012 (CEST)
TODO
- decide for a self-explanatory pagename property for #set_internal’s first argument (see Template talk:Concept scheme relation)
- revise layout + semantic properties
