W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re[2]: Resume schema in RDF

From: Uldis Bojars <uldis.bojars@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:18:42 +0200
Message-ID: <130104374092.20020606231842@gmx.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

PS> 1. Define the range of the property to be a particular class. E.g.

PS> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&ns;job_type">
PS>     <rdfs:range "&ns;JobType"/>
PS> </rdf:Property> 

PS> 2. Define a set of typed resources of that class.

PS> <ns:JobType rdf:about="&ns;JobType/Contractor"/>
PS> <ns:JobType rdf:about="&ns;JobType/Employee"/>
PS> <ns:JobType rdf:about="&ns;JobType/Intern"/>

And you have to define <rdf:Class rdf:about="&ns;JobType">, right?

What is the difference between using rdf:about in defining typed
resources in #2 and using rdf:ID as in:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="MaritalStatus" rdfs:label="Marital Status"/>

<MaritalStatus rdf:ID="Married"/>
<MaritalStatus rdf:ID="Divorced"/>
<MaritalStatus rdf:ID="Single"/>
<MaritalStatus rdf:ID="Widowed"/>

Which way is better?

My intuition tells me that IDs are more "carved in the rock", which
would be good for defining typed resources. But I do not experience to
judge it.

>> [1] Resume RDF schema: http://nightman.lv/~captsolo/cv.rdfs
>> 
>> [2] Draft model of data structure for Resume schema:
>>   http://blackeye.vsaa.lv/~davidson/scheme.gif

-- 
Best regards,
 Uldis                            mailto:uldis.bojars@gmx.net
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 16:18:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT