- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:58:19 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > Henry Story wrote: >> On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: >> >>> but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to >>> listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on >>> schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this problem... (not in >>> general. of course there is in general, but for their specific use >>> cases) >> >> The question is if schema.org makes the confusion, or if the schemas >> published there use a DocumentObject ontology where the distinctions >> are clear but the rule is that object relationships are in fact going >> via the primary topic of the document. I have not looked at the >> schema, but it seems that before arguing that they are inconsistent >> one should see if there is not a consistent interpretation of what >> they are doing. > > Sorry, I'm missing something - from what I can see, each document has a > number of items, potentially in a hierarchy, and each item is either > anonymous, or has an @itemid. > > Where's the confusion between Document and Primary Subject? Or do you mean from the Schema.org side, where each Type and Property has a dereferencable URI, which currently happens to also eb used for the document describing the Type/Property?
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 16:59:31 UTC