Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

Nathan wrote:
> Henry Story wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>>
>>> but dont be surprised as  less and less people will be willing to 
>>> listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based  on 
>>> schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this problem... (not in 
>>> general. of course there is in general, but for their specific use 
>>> cases)
>>
>> The question is if schema.org makes the confusion, or if the schemas 
>> published there use a DocumentObject ontology where the distinctions 
>> are clear but the rule is that object relationships are in fact going 
>> via the primary topic of the document. I have not looked at the 
>> schema, but it seems that before arguing that they are inconsistent 
>> one should see if there is not a consistent interpretation of what 
>> they are doing.
> 
> Sorry, I'm missing something - from what I can see, each document has a 
> number of items, potentially in a hierarchy, and each item is either 
> anonymous, or has an @itemid.
> 
> Where's the confusion between Document and Primary Subject?

Or do you mean from the Schema.org side, where each Type and Property 
has a dereferencable URI, which currently happens to also eb used for 
the document describing the Type/Property?

Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 16:59:31 UTC