W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Asunto: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

From: Stephen Pollei <stephen_pollei@comcast.net>
Date: 14 Jan 2004 08:43:38 -0800
To: Victor Lindesay <victor@schemaweb.info>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <1074098618.972.31.camel@fury>
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 05:10, Victor Lindesay wrote:
> > ... but I'd hesitate to use "anti-social" in this context.
> I think what we are all talking about is good / bad practice rather than
> something that warrants the use of 'anti-social' and 'burden on the
> community'.
That is quite right. good Vs. Bad practice is better way of saying it.
> Then he comes to 'date'. Should he
> use dc:date and introduce just one term from the Core into his vocab or
> subclass dc:date and preserve a consistent namespace across his schema.
> What would you do? I personally would subclass. Others may re-use.
> Either way is perfectly valid and ultimately it really doesn't matter.
I think that either way is valid, but not subproping in this instance is
bad practice. I also think it matters albeit in a very very minor way.
On counterpoint if he must use lots of terms from Dublin core, or if he
uses a lot of terms that are not really essential to his vocab then
using subclass/subprop etc would be bad practice. The proper balance is
key.


Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 11:52:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT