- From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:37:33 +0100
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Platform WG" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <8A88C0E7-44FD-49F9-ACD4-3035E2080F8E@uk.fujitsu.com>
hi John, thanks for your reply. > > However, as domain vocabulary is mostly designed for use with non-information resources (??), > > I'm not sure what would lead you/anyone to that conclusion. For me, an example of a domain would be "Gastronomy". Then a predicate in that domain might be "likes_food". This describes the relation between a Person and a Foodstuff" (?). It isnot a relation to talk about the relation between "Document describing a Person" and "Document about a Foodstuff" (?) ... unless you treat the information and non-information resource as the same thing. ... which is fine. Most people don't care anyway. But, I'm currently spending some time with the primer, then it seems important to get the description right. A specific question for you. For example 2 in the spec, the http://example.org/netWorth/nw1 resource seems to be both a information and non-information resource. Would you agree ? Roger > > *Every* membership predicate aside from ldp:contains corresponds to a domain vocabulary term. Those already existing, those yet to be invented too. Even ldp:member (I hear the gears grinding, but think about it - if it's Basic, it uses ldp:contains, period... "not Basic", in part, means "not ldp:contains"). > > Maybe "domain vocabulary" is confusing as a term itself ... "domain" is an OSLC-defined term that roughly corresponds to "knowledge domain" or capability, in a very very general sense. But what it really boils down to in this context is "not ldp:contains". If I want to build a container of the versions of a document that already exists (concrete example: w3.org/TR/ldp), I'd probably use an existing well-established vocabulary like Dublin Core (e.g. dcterms:isVersionOf) for that relationship - which rules out a Basic container. > > > > this is rather implying that the information resources would also be non-information resources ... (??) > Since the antecedent is false (IMO), the implication is no longer relevant. > > > > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 15:37:44 UTC