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

Fwd: rdf:value instead bibo:content

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:38:23 -0700
Message-Id: <8EB57E99-6277-4322-9375-0DB56FB51C9F@danbri.org>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

Seems some are switching *to* rdf:value?

Perhaps the property has, erm, value after all?

Dan



Begin forwarded message:

> From: ljgarcia <leylajael@gmail.com>
> Date: 31 May 2012 07:56:57 PDT
> To: Bibliographic Ontology Specification Group <bibliographic-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: rdf:value instead bibo:content
> Reply-To: bibliographic-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have seen at http://bibotools.googlecode.com/svn/bibo-ontology/trunk/doc/index.html
> that bibo:content is deprecated and rdf:value is recommended instead.
> We are working with portions of the document, e.g. sections and
> paragraphs rather than the whole document. We need to model the
> content so bibo:content seems to be the right property but (i) it is
> deprecated, and (ii) it takes bibo:Document as domain.
> Any suggestions? I find using rdf:value some inaccurate and confusing,
> I rather to use a more specific property.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Leyla GarcĂ­a
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bibliographic Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bibliographic-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bibliographic-ontology-specification-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 15:39:05 GMT

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