W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2010


From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:35:59 +0200
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <0798E7BB-E067-40D2-81DE-E3EA5BADA0C3@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
The advantage would be that your ontology could be directly used for  
exposing offer information, i.e. all the commercial details of a  
software package. That seems like a tangible advantage to me.
Conceptually, it is no stretch at all; it's the default way of  
modeling licenses or other more specific bundles of rights in  


On 21.09.2010, at 19:33, Peter Williams wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Martin Hepp
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>> Hi Peter:
>> It would make sense to make a license of your ontology a subclass of
>>        http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#BusinessFunction
>> since that really is a class representing specifications of access  
>> rights to
>> a resource (with "Sell" and "LeaseOut" bying very generic, retail- 
>> oriented
>> instances).
> Perhaps.  That seems a stretch to me.
> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/LicenseDocument> seems like a more logical
> superclass to me.  What would be the advantage of using
> BusinessFunction rather than dc:LicenseDocument?
> Peter
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 19:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:22 UTC