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

Re: Another try.

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:45:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpSVc=HYKCwXaEvwJCPDRNajEfcOcjNxN0E7FFieEiAcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF-WG Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 7 March 2012 13:31, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> Isn't this stuff handled just fine with subproperties?  This seems much
> simpler than the general n-ary or time-parameter stuff, because it is a
> subproperty -- every home-phone is also a phone -- unlike to time
> stuff.    (It doesn't hold that every address-last-week is an
> address-for-all-time.)

Part of the problem here is workflow. Is it an anonymous subproperty?
Or one whose URI is in the same doc as the message/doc? Or does the
authoring process include creating e.g. a purl-like URI on a more
stable service?

Interesting Q is how it looks in RDFa. In some ways things are easier
since we can mention the super-type alongside

Inside some markup describing Sandro, in RDFa 1.1 we might have <span
rel="foaf:phone uuid:1234123:homeFaxColor ...

...but we'd also need the info declaring the subproperty somewhere
too; either inline or in the Web.

I'm not comfortable with too much modeling leaking into
properties-of-properties, but it seems appealing to allow at least
attribute value pairs. Hard to know where to draw the line.

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:46:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT