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

Re: rdf:value instead bibo:content

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:57:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD220EE.8030506@gmail.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
One problem with rdf:value is that it is an "attractive nuisance".

Developers see what appears to be a nice clean pool of water in which to place 
their ontology, and don't notice the acid that will eventually break it down, 
nor the slick walls that prevent extraction..

peter

On 06/08/2012 11:49 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2012, at 09:51, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Or, just redefine it to match what people actually use it for?
>
> If there's genuinely no kosher uses of it in the wild, that ought to be harmless, and user-friendly.
>
> Regards,
>     Steve
>
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 15:57:59 GMT

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