PROPOSED RESOLUTION of attribution (again!) (Was Re: wdrs:issuedby fc. foaf:maker and dcterms:creator)

Andrea, can I just double check this please, your solution is that we 
define:

wdrs:issuedby rdfs:subPropertyOf foaf:Agent
wdrs:issuedby rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterms:Agent

And

<wdrs:Agent>
   <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
     <foaf:Agent />
     <dcterms:Agent />
   </owl:unionOf>
</wdrs:Agent>

Which means that in POWDER-S one can use ANY of

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
   <wdrs:issuedby>
     <wdrs:Agent>
       ...
     </wdrs:Agent>
   </wdrs:issuedby>
</owl:Ontology>

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
   <wdrs:issuedby>
     <foaf:Agent>
       ...
     </foaf:Agent>
   </wdrs:issuedby>
</owl:Ontology>

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
   <wdrs:issuedby>
     <dcterms:Agent>
       ...
     </dcterms:Agent>
   </wdrs:issuedby>
</owl:Ontology>

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
   <foaf:maker>
     <foaf:Agent>
       ...
     </foaf:Agent>
   </foaf:maker>
</owl:Ontology>

<owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
   <dcterms:creator>
     <dcterms:Agent>
       ...
     </dcterms:Agent>
   </dcterms:Agent>
</owl:Ontology>

If so, that's a big +1 from me :-)

Phil



Phil Archer wrote:
> 
> Comments inline below
> 
> Andrea Perego wrote:
>>
>>> Andrea, I hope you don't mind me moving this to the public list and 
>>> renaming the thread - it's an important discussion. Thanks for 
>>> pursuing it.
>>
>> No problem at all, Phil!
>>
>>> [snip]
>>> What we want to be able to do is either of
>>>
>>> <wdrs:issuedby>
>>>   <foaf:Agent>
>>>     ...
>>>   </foaf:Agent>
>>> </wdrs:issuedBy>
>>>
>>> <wdrs:issuedby>
>>>   <dcterms:Agent>
>>>   ...
>>>   </dcterms:Agent>
>>> </wdrs:issuedby>
>>>
>>> _without_ having to define our own Agent class - 2 is enough already!
>>
>> I agree. Note however that, by defining a class wdrs:Agent as the 
>> union of dcterms:Agent and foaf:Agent, we are not requiring DR authors 
>> to use it. They can use directly either dcterms:Agent or foaf:Agent. 
>> So, defining wdrs:Agent would be just a way to support what you say 
>> above. Moreover, such class would give us the opportunity of 
>> explaining what we think can be DR author, and it could be later 
>> refined in order to make it more near the actual notion of a DR author 
>> (as discussed in the thread starting at [1]).
> 
> OK, that very sounds sensible. Unless there are objections, let's do that.
> 
> [snip]
>> A possible solution is the following:
>> - defining wdrs:issuedby without specifying any subproperty 
>> relationship with foaf:maker / dcterms:creator; in the specs, we state 
>> the semantics of wdrs:issued, and we also say that it can be replaced 
>> by similar terms, defined elsewhere, and we suggest (for the moment) 
>> dcterms:creator and foaf:maker
>> - the range of wdrs:issuedby can be left undefined or defined as the 
>> union of dcterms:Agent and foaf:Agent
> 
> I don't like that as we don't want people to have free choice. They 
> really MUST use either FOAF or dcterms. Your union of the Agent classes 
> looks like the one to me - it matches the mood of last week's f2f and 
> has the benefit of you having had time to think about it more than we 
> did a week ago.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 21 July 2008 11:20:16 UTC