- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:57:35 +0100
- To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "Jason Johnson (BING)" <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Juraj Kabát <kabat.juraj@gmail.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
On 4 August 2014 13:48, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote: >> "it is better to support this directly at the level of the markup syntax >> so that we do not have to define inverse variants for ALL properties, >> >> which would blow up the vocabulary". > > > This I understand. I am just left wondering how the meaning than be inferred > if there is no inverseOf value for a property? Or isn't this an issue and is > the reverse-relation statement expressive enough? In the RDFa and JSON-LD cases, where it is more common to see multiple vocabularies used together, note that there might be cases where a pair of properties are not perfect inverses e.g. event001 v1:location place262 . place262 v2:upcomingEvent event001 . In this case the two properties might usefully appear together on pages that describe events in the future, ... but you wouldn't consider them complete inverses e.g. since a past event might not be an appropriate value for the upcomingEvent property. This might be less relevant to Microdata where multiple vocabularies aren't so often used together. But there may well be cases matching this pattern even from within schema.org itself, I just can't think of one right now! Dan
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 12:58:05 UTC