W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: POWDER tags use case rewritten and rdf:type requirement

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:42:50 +0200
Message-ID: <467F9C2A.1060903@few.vu.nl>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Hi Kjetil
> On Friday 22 June 2007 11:52, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>   
>> Be careful, *there is no skos:it at the moment in SKOS*! [1]
>> I would just recommend you to use your own property
>>     
>
> OK, I wonder if it would be a good idea for POWDER creating a property 
> for this?
>
> I think we need (in pig RDF):
> { wdr:Description rdfs:subClassof rdf:Description . }
>
> { wdr:conceptmeans [ rdfs:range skos:Concept . 
>                                    rdfs:domain wdr:Description ] }
>
> Or something like that...
>   
I think it wouldn't be a good idea for the subClassOf link. I'm not an 
expert in RDF, but I think rdf:Description was intended as a very 
specific, syntax-oriented construct and not a conceptual entity:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Namespace
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/, section 3.1 describing the RDF vocabulary

Otherwise I think that it is wiser to create your own property. Be 
careful however with the direction of your conceptmeans property, as 
specified by domain/range: does it go 'from' a description 'to' a 
concept? I dont mind, it's your vocabulary ;-) but it's just that the 
skos:it you mentioned goes from a concept to something else, I think.

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 10:43:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:11 GMT