W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2009

Re: e-triples

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:36:29 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0907250136oefbba39qb3245a84eee6741c@mail.gmail.com>
To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, Mary Ayers <mary.ayers@onetel.net>
2009/7/24 Martin Hepp (UniBW) <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:

>> Personally I'd grumble a bit with Martin's modelling, but it is
>> usable. The Good Relations vocab is good enough.
>>
>
> Thanks - if you could serialize the grumbling into change requests, that
> would help ;-)

Maybe 'grumble' was a bit strong - I've noodled with product
description stuff in the past enough to gather it's pretty hard, and
'good enough' is impressive :)

Looking again at the vocab, the only significant part I'd do
differently is ProductOrService (and similarly structured related
classes). While in the context of selling stuff this combination fits
well, there are big differences nearby, e.g. physical characteristics,
means of delivery.

So given that OR is pretty straightforward in RDF(S),  I reckon p-s
could usefully be separated, though some finesse would be needed. A
non-breaking tweak would be to hang properties off these classes to
(somehow) state whether the thing in question was a Product or a
Service.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 08:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:13 UTC