- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 08:53:13 +0100
- To: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- CC: "public-gld-wg@w3.org" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Hi Renato, On 09/05/13 04:58, Renato Iannella wrote: > > On 8 May 2013, at 19:13, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It is greyed out. I was keen to reflect the "recommendation" to use vcard in the diagram. >> If this is problematic I will remove it from the diagram. [A replacement diagram is in preparation in any case.] > > Or add a legend to the diagram. I've replaced the vcard box with some brief text saying we "recommend the vcard ontology". >> Is it? I don't see in the current draft anything which defines the properties of a v:Location so it's hard to tell. > > Aside: There is a small bug in LODE (the OWL to HTML converter) and it seemed to have misrepresented the Location description...will be fixed. OK. Looking at the OWL I didn't see much in the way of axioms about v:Location. Possibly the relevant properties are open-domain. I sometimes use the non-standard (but not harmful) trick of declaring minCard(0) restrictions as a way to hint that a property might be used on a class without requiring it.[1] >> Are you satisfied with this response? > > > Yes. Great, thanks for confirming. Cheers, Dave [1] The question of how to say "property X is mandatory but if you want to express concept x here then please use property X for it" is a recurrent need in semweb modelling :)
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 07:53:44 UTC