- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:23:04 -0800
- To: public-lld@w3.org
but I wonder if the answer wouldn't have been different if you had said that you would have many thousands of different identifiers. kc Quoting Adrian Pohl <pohl@hbz-nrw.de>: > Hello William, > > when I asked the question of whether to use a predicate approach or > a datatype approach at semantic overflow (now > answers.semanticweb.com) no arguments were delivered for the > datatype approach but for the predicate approach and other > approaches discussed here. See [1]. > > All the best > Adrian > > [1] http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/3572/xsd-or-vocabulary > >>>> On 13.12.2011 at 16:01, in message > <20111213.150108.304380347.wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, William Waites > <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:02:21 +0100, "Adrian Pohl" <pohl@hbz-nrw.de> said: >> >> adrian> <info:0915145537> >> >> I kind of want to say that this shouldn't be shoehorned into a >> non-resolvable URI but instead should be a datatype. It's a special >> string. So, >> >> "0915145537"^^xyz:isbn >> >> then you can just use dc:identifier... >> >> Maybe not so obvious with bibliographic identifiers, but with some >> other kinds of literals (e.g. weights and measures - thanks mmmmmrob) >> it starts seeming quite strange to put what is really a datatype into >> the meaning of the predicate... >> >> Cheers, >> -w >> -- >> William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> >> Visiting Researcher, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science >> School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 13:23:34 UTC