W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:05:21 +0100
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7D209674-B819-4854-A717-3F95A6F1FF3A@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On Nov 14, 2011, at 14:56 , Dan Brickley wrote:
> I don't see things that way at all, sorry! sameAs is the nuclear one;
> it states that there's just one thing, not too. So the hijacking
> metaphor makes sense there.
> As I understand equivalentClass (and equivalentProperty), you're just
> saying that any world in which 'foo a Class1' is true, will also have
> 'foo a Class2' being true also, and so on. Cutting back to subClassOf
> just means you're admitting the possibility that there are some things
> that are in one class, but not in the other. Why force people to say
> this if they mean otherwise?
> Example: between FOAF and DC we agreed that we couldn't think of any
> examples of dcterms:Agent that were not also foaf:Agent and vice
> versa, ie. that our intent and wording and practice meant that they
> were effectively equivalent. Why force us to say something other than
> that in the markup?
> Whether tools do anything complete with that is another matter. But it
> seems fine to allow vocab owners to express equivalence directly (he
> says, naively innocent of OWL RL details).

I am not vehemently against adopting some OWL statements, essentially the equivalency things. Can you submit a kind of an error message to the RDFa WG on this? It would make it easier to discuss this.


> cheers,
> Dan

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 14:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:25 UTC