- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:04:44 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
On Monday 25 June 2007 12:42, Antoine Isaac wrote: > I think it wouldn't be a good idea for the subClassOf link. I'm not > an expert in RDF, but I think rdf:Description was intended as a very > specific, syntax-oriented construct and not a conceptual entity: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Na >mespace http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/, section 3.1 describing the RDF > vocabulary > > Otherwise I think that it is wiser to create your own property. Be > careful however with the direction of your conceptmeans property, as > specified by domain/range: does it go 'from' a description 'to' a > concept? I dont mind, it's your vocabulary ;-) but it's just that the > skos:it you mentioned goes from a concept to something else, I think. Uh, I got everything wrong this, morning it seems... :-( To the second point, there is nothing to be said but "duh", of course it is the other way around, thanks. I guess you're right about the first point too, my point was merely that we shouldn't use rdf:Description directly, as we wouldn't have a useful class to detect. -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Semantic Web Specialist Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 11:05:18 UTC