- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:51:39 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 6 Jun 2012, at 18:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Yes, I know that there are examples of rdf:value being used in n-ary relations and structured objects. They all look like disasters-in-waiting. +1. I've never seen a use of rdf:value that isn't an anti-pattern. In n-ary relations you want to declare the range of the value, and you can't do that for rdf:value (because you'd get clashing range declarations). The rdf:value property is inappropriate for modeling n-ary relations. I still think that rdf:value ought to be deprecated. Best, Richard > > I'm still trying to understand why anyone would want to use rdf: value for these purposes. > > peter > > On 06/06/2012 11:03 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: >> On 6 June 2012 08:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I particularly don't understand why rdf:value would be used when emulating >>> general n-ary relations. Could you enlighten me? >> That was one of it's original uses; alongside being the old name for >> rdf:object. >> >> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0252.html >> for the messy history... >> >> Dan >> >>> peter >>> >>> PS: I find the example in the RDF Primer to be totally incorrect. >>> >>> >>> On 06/06/2012 10:52 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31-05-2012 17:38, Dan Brickley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Seems some are switching *to* rdf:value? >>>> >>>> [cultural open-data hat on] >>>> >>>> We've done the same in the past. Actually, rdf;value makes a lot of >>>> conceptual sense in a binary data model like RDF, as nodes are relatively >>>> freuntly used for n-ary relations. >>>> >>>> Guus >>>> >>>>> Perhaps the property has, erm, value after all? >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 10:24:43 UTC