- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:56:05 +0200
- To: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
- CC: music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Vasiliy,
Am 20.07.2010 14:39, schrieb Vasiliy Faronov:
> Bob Ferris wrote:
>> The second property of co:Counter is co:count, which is a simple
>> xsd:int based datatype property.
>
> Any reasons for not using rdf:value[1]?
>
> Not that it would make a lot of difference, but seems like this property
> was made exactly for such statements.
>
Good question, however, when I read through the description of
rdf:value[1], I found also:
"..the principle that such simple values are often insufficient to
adequately describe these values is an important one. In a global
environment such as the Web, it is generally not safe to make the
assumption that anyone accessing a property value will understand the
units being used.."
How can I make sure that the value of my counter concept is of the type
xsd:Integer? I think with the current definition:
co:count
rdf:type rdf:Property , owl:FunctionalProperty ;
rdfs:comment "Links a counter resource to the actual count"@en ;
rdfs:domain co:Counter ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy co: ;
rdfs:label "has count"@en ;
rdfs:range xsd:integer ;
vs:term_status "stable"@en .
it works.
Cheers,
Bob
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:56:37 UTC