- From: Martin Hepp (UniBW) <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 11:27:03 +0200
- To: Daniel O'Connor <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com>
- CC: richard.hancock@3kbo.com, public-lod@w3.org
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 09:57:07 UTC
Hi all: >By the way, any chance of asserting that a gr:BusinessEntity is equivalent to a foaf:Organisation or foaf:Agent? As a statement in a particular data space, I think such a link is pretty accurate and useful. However, we currently prefer to collate such "heuristics"-based mapping axioms in separate files instead of including them in the vocabulary specification. The reason is that some users of GoodRelations manage clean OWL DL models inside corporate applications; there, importing, or linking to, RDF schema elements has unwanted side-effects. Don't get me wrong: We are very interested and collecting practically useful link statements. But I think they should be managed in a modular fashion. Best Martin Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > > <gr:BusinessEntity rdf:ID="BusinessEntity"> > ... > <owl:sameAs > rdf:resource="http://www.3kbo.com/people/richard.hancock/foaf.rdf#i"/> > ... > </gr:BusinessEntity> > > > By the way, any chance of asserting that a gr:BusinessEntity is > equivalent to a foaf:Organisation or foaf:Agent?
Received on Monday, 4 May 2009 09:57:07 UTC