W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2011

Vocab Zoo research: gr:Brand, po:Brand

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:16:31 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=U6fSLJRonnyN2c7NQzHWWWT6=Zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Hepp <hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Hi Martin, Yves,

I'm investigating naming clashes between popular RDF vocabularies.

It seems both Good Relations and Programmes Ontology have some notion
of 'Brand'.

Can we try to figure out together what the relationship might be?

Can a single thing in the world be both a gr:Brand and po:Brand? is
one a superclass of the other?

http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#Brand
"A brand is the identity of a specific product, service, or business.
Use foaf:logo for attaching a brand logo and gr:name or rdfs:label for
attaching the brand name."

The Programmes ontology usage seems consistent with this, specialised
to TV content,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes/2009-09-07.shtml#Brand
"Brand - A brand, e.g. `Top Gear'"

When I look at that example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59.rdf I see a dc:title applied
to the brand, whereas gr uses rdfs:label.

Can we live with saying that po:Brand is a subClass of gr:Brand? Are
there any characteristics of gr:Brand that might make this a poor fit,
Martin?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Dan
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 14:17:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:36 GMT