Re: The semantics of rdfs:label

Lars,

As I believe you have already concluded, rdfs:label is clearly not the 
"standard" common superproperty of all name properties.  I think, as you 
suggested, creating a property specifically for this purpose is the right 
way to go, and people (like Dan) for whom rdfs:label already is that 
property can specify the equivalence in their vocabularies, and people 
(like me) for whom it is not can keep them separate.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: welty@watson.ibm.com
Web: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/



Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net> 
Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
09/15/2005 03:27 PM

To
public-swbp-wg@w3.org
cc

Subject
Re: The semantics of rdfs:label








* Christopher Welty
|
| I'm not sure there is an official answer to the question.  But I
| have a lot of experience with it that I can share.

Your advice seems quite sound to me, but is mostly helpful for people
creating vocabularies. The RDFTM task force is in a slightly different
position, however. We have to create a generic mapping between a
technology that does not have a built-in concept of names (RDF) and
one that does (Topic Maps). This was why we were wondering if
rdfs:label is the common superproperty of all name properties. If it
is, it means that untyped names from Topic Maps can become rdfs:label
statements in RDF, and vice versa. If not things get a little harder.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >