- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:39:13 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: David Canos <davidcanos@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
>> Wow. No need to shout!!!! > > Sorry. You pressed one my buttons. I am so fed up reading 'documentation' > along the lines of "A frongleBlitz" is any blitz with a frongle". It is just > irresponsible to write such stuff when putting forward something that is > claimed to be an ontology, especially one that is touted as being generally > useful. Fair enough, I guess. > >> >> Anyway, yes, the documentation is not particularly good, for the only >> reason that most people got it from the examples (which is apparently >> wrong or not enough, then?) and so we didn't got the incentive to >> write a better one. > > The incentive should have been part of the initial publication. > >> Among those examples, you have: >> >> * A score in a musical performance >> * A musical instrument in a musical performance > > OK, but how about the concert hall in a musical performance? The conductor > of a musical performance? The seating used by the musician in a musical > performance? Im guessing these are not factors, but why not? > >> * A piece of text in a reading >> * A microphone in a recording >> >> The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as >> something that doesn't have an active role in the event. > > But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a significant role in > the event, so that if they were not present, the event would have been > different? Or something? What is a foaf:Agent? An event:Factor is something contributing to an event that is not a foaf:Agent. Sorry, but I still think it is well defined and clear enough. y
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 20:39:54 UTC