Difference between revisions of "Template:Concept scheme relation"

From TDWG Terms Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (fix {{ … }})
Line 20: Line 20:
 
// output (TODO adjust correct links/texts)
 
// output (TODO adjust correct links/texts)
 
//////////////////////////////
 
//////////////////////////////
-->{{#if: {{{property cardinality|}}}{{{property domain|}}}{{{property range|}}}<!-- no output when just the scheme was specified
+
-->{{#if: {{{property cardinality|}}}{{{property domain|}}}{{{property range|}}}<!-- no output when only the scheme was specified
 
then-->|<nowiki></nowiki>
 
then-->|<nowiki></nowiki>
  
For scheme [[{{{scheme}}}]] the concept “{{PAGENAME}}” has constraints: {{#if:{{{property cardinality|}}} |  
+
Constraints in the context of [[{{{scheme}}}]]: {{#if:{{{property cardinality|}}} |  
 
* [[Help:Cardinality | cardinality]] {{Cardinality from value to explained | {{{property cardinality|}}} }} }}<!--
 
* [[Help:Cardinality | cardinality]] {{Cardinality from value to explained | {{{property cardinality|}}} }} }}<!--
 
-->{{#if:{{{property domain|}}} |  
 
-->{{#if:{{{property domain|}}} |  

Revision as of 10:30, 16 November 2012

[edit] [purge] Template-info.svg Template documentation

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.


  1. is rdfs:range correct? --Andreas Plank 17:32, 25 October 2012 (CEST)


TODO

See also