- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:40:23 -0400
- To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Simon Reinhardt<simon.reinhardt@koeln.de> wrote: > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Yves Raimond<yves.raimond@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> and so we didn't got the incentive to >>> write a better one. Among those examples, you have: >>> >>> * A score in a musical performance >>> * A musical instrument in a musical performance >>> * A piece of text in a reading >>> * A microphone in a recording >> >> A chair in the room? The door to leave? The program handed out to the >> audience? The audience? The light bulb illuminating the room? The food >> that audience ate while watching? The videotape that was being used to >> record the performance? The city in which the performance took place? > > I think that's splitting hairs. If the light bulb is important to you then > add it to your data. I see. So we should understand the factor property to related the event to anything the publisher thinks is important to link to. Well, that's one way to go. But use rdfs:seeAlso, then, instead of something that has the look of being something different. I will simply say that this isn't much to go on, and, while nice for browsing, isn't really the sort of think you want to build a predictably behaving system on. > With RDF it's always pretty much up to you what you do, > right? How is this statement not true of absolutely anything? I think we want something a *little* tighter :) > The ontology user and data publisher is as responsible for data > integration as is the ontology designer. And if the data consumers thing you > went too far and have too much noise in your data then you have to fix that. > And while the Event ontology doesn't state event:Factor and geo:SpatialThing > to be distinct (maybe they didn't want to make such statements about other > people's terms - with OWL 2 they could do this for event:factor and > event:place now though) I think it's pretty obvious that you're supposed to > use event:place for the city in which the performance took place (or more > exactly for the venue which is in the city). Everything is obvious for a person (well, it's easier to say things are obvious when there is no way to be wrong). Nothing is obvious for a machine. -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 18:41:22 UTC