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

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

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:33:29 +0100
Message-ID: <467FA809.2000805@icra.org>
To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
CC: public-powderwg@w3.org

We haven't actually got on to talking about Description Resources yet 
(honestly we haven't!) but I think this thread is going to be critical 
in deciding whether we do need a separate Class for the description or 
whether we can just use rdf:Description.


Andrea Perego wrote:
> Hi, Kjetil.
> In the current version of the WDR vocabulary, wdr:Description is defined
> as instance of owl:Class.
> Andrea
> 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 11:33:34 UTC

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