- From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:49:31 +0200
- To: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi all, Via Michael Hausenblas [1] I just learnt about your work in standardising various vocabularies. After skimming the working drafts for them I noticed what seems like some inconsistencies in the level of integrating the vocabularies with each other and other work. I wondered if that's just an oversight or if there were actually good reasons for that. The "Data Catalog Vocabulary" [2] uses a term from FOAF, namely foaf:Organization. "Terms for describing people" [3] then also seems to be largely based on FOAF, and based on "An organization ontology" [4] which, however, defines its own class org:Organization. Was there a particular reason for that? And also for defining org:hasMember as an equivalent property to foaf:member instead of re-using that? (Btw: The section about org:hasMember mentions an inverse org:memberOf which is not defined separately. But I'm actually in favour of not defining inverses. And the domain and range of org:hasMember seem switched.) I also see some other potential mappings or opportunities for re-use: dcat:Dataset could be a sub-class or replaced with void:Dataset [5]. And in "The RDF Data Cube Vocabulary" [6] I find another class, qb:DataSet, but that seems to have a more specialised purpose. Regards, Simon [1] https://plus.google.com/102497386507936526460/posts/Xswyq5GxdvL [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/ [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/void/ [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 22:50:07 UTC