W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: ISSUE-65 (excess vocab): REPORTED: excessive duplication of vocabulary

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:39:34 +0100
Message-ID: <474C3A36.5010601@w3.org>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Cc: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Well... I did meet one example. DCMI (the organization behind the Dublin
>> Core metadata) is having problems exactly on that. They have an abstract
>> model document[1] where they speak about 'value surrogate' that can
>> either be a literal or non-literal. When mapping this abstract model to
>> RDF[2] they hit this problem (eg, is the value of a dcterm:subject
>> property a literal or not).
> I personally think that this example illustrates plain bad modelling 
> practice. Can you point to some discussion of the motivations for this 
> choice which might modify my view?

Hm. Not directly. There is a mailing list:


to which you could sign up, I suppose, but I am not sure you want
that... There is probably an archive somewhere... But I was not involved
in the discussions around those 'surrogate'-s, so I really cannot say.

However. While I do not want to defend their modelling practice, we have
to acknowledge that they are there, they exist, and they represent a
major community (through the DCMI we get to the whole library community
which is not a small one) that we may want to serve by providing punning
of datatype/object properties. That is all...


> -Evan


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 15:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC