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

Re: rdf:value instead bibo:content

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:51:39 +0200
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15DBF519-0B1F-4CB4-941D-A6426B99B1BA@cyganiak.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 6 Jun 2012, at 18:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

+1.

I've never seen a use of rdf:value that isn't an anti-pattern.

In n-ary relations you want to declare the range of the value, and you can't do that for rdf:value (because you'd get clashing range declarations). The rdf:value property is inappropriate for modeling n-ary relations.

I still think that rdf:value ought to be deprecated.

Best,
Richard



> 
> 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 Friday, 8 June 2012 10:24:43 GMT

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