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

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

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:04:44 +0200
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200706251304.45644.kjetilk@opera.com>

On Monday 25 June 2007 12:42, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> 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-Na
>mespace 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.

Uh, I got everything wrong this, morning it seems... :-( To the second 
point, there is nothing to be said but "duh", of course it is the other 
way around, thanks. 

I guess you're right about the first point too, my point was merely that 
we shouldn't use rdf:Description directly, as we wouldn't have a useful 
class to detect.

-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Semantic Web Specialist
Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 11:05:18 GMT

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