- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:46:51 -0400
- To: Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com>
- Cc: doap-interest@lists.usefulinc.com, public-esw@w3.org
Hi Edd, (aside: the rdfs:domain of foaf:homepage was recently broadened from foaf:Agent to rdfs:Resource, ie, anything can in principle have a homepage now). If it's the case that anything that has a doap:homepage of X also has a foaf:homepage of X, would you consider amending the DOAP schema at http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap to assert this? In passing, we probably shouldn't assert that anything with a foaf:homepage of Y also has a doap:homepage of Y, since that'd imply (per doap:homepage's rdfs:domain of doap:Project) that it'd be a doap:Project, and there are many non-Project things with foaf:homepage. The addition would be <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage"/> ...this should btw let us share work on translations of comparable schema terms :) If you're ok with this, I could put corresponding statements into the FOAF schema. A FAQ draft: Q: Why does DOAP have its own property called doap:homepage instead of using the existing and widely used foaf:homepage property? A: doap:homepage has additional semantics; it is defined as being applicable only to things that are in the doap:Project class (expressed using rdfs:domain in the DOAP schema). This means that whenever you claim that some thing, let's call it X, has a doap:homepage of some thing, Y, you're implicitly claiming that X is a doap:Project. More generally, all RDF vocabularies encounter this question: how self-contained should they be? The DOAP design tries to find a middle ground between two extremes - it uses bits of FOAF where relevant, but doesn't try to draw on dozens of relevant but scattered RDF vocabularies. Not wanting to put words into your mouth, of course. But that's my take on the DOAP design tradeoffs... cheers, Dan ps. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw/2004Sep/0004.html http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2004/09/23/2004-09-23.html#1095929014.190278 for more context (I'd like to show data merging between DOAP, FOAF and SWED project descriptions...) ps. OWL folks are urging me to drop the owl:import statements in the FOAF schema, which I'll probably do at the next update, replacing them with rdfs:seeAlso. You might want to consider doing the same. It's all voodoo anyway and as far as I'm concerned rdfs:seeAlso was all I really cared to assert!
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 11:46:51 UTC