- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:50:53 +0200
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
- CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
>> 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. > You're welcome. > 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. > So you were not far from the truth! Antoine
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 13:04:36 UTC