At Wed, 7 Jul 2010 14:30:37 -0400, Ross Singer wrote: > > I'm not sure where you get that it's appropriate (or preferred) to only have > one rdf:type per resource. > > I am with you about foaf:Person and skos:Concept, only because I think > they're different things (that is, they are abstractly disjoint even if they > aren't ontologically). Other people think differently. > > However I don't think it's necessary to create a bunch of different URIs to > say that: > > http://purl.org/NET/book/isbn/0192838024#book > > is a: > > http://purl.org/NET/book/vocab#Book > http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/Book > http://vocab.org/frbr/core#Manifestation > http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProductOrServicesSomeInstancesPlaceholder > http://sites.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/suhl/bizer/bookmashup/simpleCommerceVocab01.rdf#Book Agreed with Ross here. rdf:type should not be used to address the issues you are talking about. You can use named graphs to keep the sources of information separate, or you can use two identified resources (URIs) to keep track of two different concepts (e.g., a person as a person, or a person as a concept). If resources are constrained to having one rdf:type, then we are going to create many new, unnecessary URIs, as Ross says above, breaking the web architecture best practice: A URI owner SHOULD NOT associate arbitrarily different URIs with the same resource. [1] best, Erik 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliasesReceived on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 19:52:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 July 2010 19:52:37 GMT