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

Re: Fwd: rdf:value instead bibo:content

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:31:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4FCF85C7.9010609@gmail.com>
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 GMT

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