- From: Sven Schade <sven.schade@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:04:08 +0100
- To: "'Raphaël Troncy'" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, janowicz@ucsb.edu, public-locadd@w3.org
- Cc: "'Pascal Hitzler'" <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
Hi all, > This does not mean re-using vocabulary is a bad thing, again, when this is relevant. I guess, we said enough on this one and found a general agreement, while otherwise agree to disagree. Good to have this clarified (in this group)... >> I agree and please do not read my email as a criticism, attack, or >> whatever but as a discussion starter of what we really want to develop >> and how. +1 >>> Let's go back to the original problem of this >>> thread: geographical identifier. Reading the thread again, I'm also (together with at least Oscar and Andrea) in favor of your proposal, Raphaël, to keep using rdfs:seeAlso, and looking for an appropriate way to communicate this in the vocabulary specification. rdfs:seeAlso is supposed to indicate any resource that might provide additional information about the subject resource. A pointer to additional information provided by a GIS clearly falls into this category. Best wishes, Sven
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 11:04:48 UTC