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

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

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:24:42 +0200
Message-ID: <467FA5FA.4070807@uninsubria.it>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Hi, Kjetil.

In the current version of the WDR vocabulary, wdr:Description is defined
as instance of owl:Class.


Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> 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.
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 11:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:03 UTC