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