W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: rdf:value and RDF Schema (was: typed containers in RDF Schema)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:52:12 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020611114535.0457c718@15.144.25.13>
To: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

At 20:19 09/06/2002 -0700, Garret Wilson wrote:

[...]


>Well, let's say I have another work (urn:x-books:book2) that has the same
>dc:creator of urn:x-people:jane-doe---but in this case, Jane is the author,
>not the annotator. If the b-node above is the same as urn:x-people:jane-doe,
>then there's a big problem: Jane Doe would be listed as the annotator of
>urn:x-books:book2, even though she's the *author* of that work. That is,
>once a non-b-node Jane Doe gets an oebps:role, she *always* has that role.

Just so and I thought that was why you had structured things this way.  How 
then how do we think of the type of that b-node.  If we think of it as 
"person-in-role" and "person-in-role" is a subclass of person, then the 
range constraint of the creator property is maintained and that is 
fine.  But then the use of rdf:value, whilst not wrong, since RDF defines 
no formal semantics for it, doesn't quite feel right to me.  I'd have used 
a more specific property, e.g. person.

I'm not arguing that your modeling is wrong; at this stage I'm just trying 
to understand it.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 07:26:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT