- From: Rob H Warren <warren@muninn-project.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:28:19 -0500
- To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
I have been abusing the definition of void:inDataset and making use of it for non foaf:Document resources. Dropping the domain from the definition of void:inDataset is something that I'd like to see in an update of VoID. Dcterms:isPartOf has been (ab)used for too many purposes in too many contexts for it to retain any meaning. -rhw > On Nov 29, 2017, at 9:14 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote: > > Hello, > > The VoID vocabulary can be used to describe RDF datasets, and can be used to specify that one dataset is a subset of another dataset. But what is the proper/best way for the inverse relationship - saying that a dataset is a superset of the other? > > An example: > > ex:DatasetA a void:Dataset; > void:subset ex:DatasetB > . > > ex:DatasetB a void:Dataset; > ? ex:DatasetA > . > > What could be put at the question mark? VoID has the propertyvoid:inDataset, but it has foaf:Document as its domain. So it can only be used for documents, not for any dataset. Dcterms:isPartOf is another possibility, but it is a very general property which could already be in use for other purposes in the same dataset. Also, it seems kind of funny hat the two inverse relationships come from different vocabularies. Could there be something better? > > If there is no ideal solution, I wonder if there at least is a common practice. > > Regards, > Frans
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2017 15:28:44 UTC