W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Fwd: rdf:value instead bibo:content

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:03:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFp5sEUBwBXxgeLEw=5r8NgBRqGYa06GmvoxXWfRxCagfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 6 June 2012 08:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> I particularly don't understand why rdf:value would be used when emulating
> general n-ary relations.  Could you enlighten me?

That was one of it's original uses; alongside being the old name for
rdf:object.

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0252.html
for the messy history...

Dan

> peter
>
> PS:  I find the example in the RDF Primer to be totally incorrect.
>
>
> On 06/06/2012 10:52 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31-05-2012 17:38, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems some are switching *to* rdf:value?
>>
>>
>> [cultural open-data hat on]
>>
>> We've done the same in the past. Actually, rdf;value makes a lot of
>> conceptual sense in a binary data model like RDF, as nodes are relatively
>> freuntly used for n-ary relations.
>>
>> Guus
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the property has, erm, value after all?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 15:04:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT