- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:22:08 +0000
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: ivan@w3.org, boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
I agree that the kind of example put forward by Jeremy may be considered "bad modelling" -- it is surely not intended that a string is the creator of anything. What probably is intended is that the creator is some object (so dc:creator would be an object property), and that object may have a name (typically a string accessed via a datatype property). I don't mean to imply that no "good" example exists, or that it is reasonable to ignore requirements deriving from what we believe to be misuse of the language ;-) Ian On 27 Nov 2007, at 15:28, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: > > > Ivan Herman wrote: >> Well... I did meet one example. DCMI (the organization behind the >> Dublin >> Core metadata) is having problems exactly on that. They have an >> abstract >> model document[1] where they speak about 'value surrogate' that can >> either be a literal or non-literal. When mapping this abstract >> model to >> RDF[2] they hit this problem (eg, is the value of a dcterm:subject >> property a literal or not). > > I personally think that this example illustrates plain bad modelling > practice. Can you point to some discussion of the motivations for this > choice which might modify my view? > > -Evan >
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 16:22:18 UTC