- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:35:59 +0200
- To: Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.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 GoodRelations. Martin 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