RE: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

You are arguing that they are the same resource by having the individual, identified by the same URI, have multiple rdf:type's.  There is a direct analogy with the TAG GenericResource-53 decision which basically says use separate URIs for the generic resource and its variant representations... per my prior example:

 

  <!-- Generic Resource -->

  <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Person">

    <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="" />

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#foaf:Person" />

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#skos:Concept" />

  </owl:Thing>

 

  <!-- Variant Representation -->

  <foaf:Person rdf:about="#foaf:Person">

    <dct:identifier>1</dct:identifier>

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#Person" />

  </foaf:Person>

 

  <!-- Variant Representation -->

  <skos:Concept rdf:about="#skos:Concept">

    <dct:identifier>5</dct:identifier>

    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="#Person" />

  </skos:Concept>

 

I think we can agree to disagree on this issue.  OWL DL permits you to have multiple rdf:type's, whether that is a good idea or not remains to be seen.  I'm saying that by limiting the individuals in your ontology to one rdf:type, you avoid conflating properties between these *variant representations* and it's still OWL DL compliant.  I think you are saying that its too onerous to create separate URIs and you don't really care about the use cases where an application wants to explicitly know which properties are associated with what rdf:type since they have been conflated into a blob of properties for the individual.

 

Andy.

 

From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 04:59 PM
To: Houghton,Andrew
Cc: public-lld; Young,Jeff (OR)
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition
Importance: Low

 

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Houghton,Andrew <houghtoa@oclc.org> wrote:

	 

	This is a gross overstatement of the Web Architecture best practice...
	
	For example, a foaf:Person and a skos:Concept are *different* resources.

 

Who is arguing that they're the same? 

 

-Ross.