- From: Uldis Bojars <uldis.bojars@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 23:18:42 +0200
- 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 UTC