- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:31:03 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I know that there are examples of rdf:value being used in n-ary relations and structured objects. They all look like disasters-in-waiting. I'm still trying to understand why anyone would want to use rdf: value for these purposes. peter On 06/06/2012 11:03 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > 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 16:31:37 UTC