- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:49:15 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 8 Jun 2012, at 09:51, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 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. Or, just redefine it to match what people actually use it for? If there's genuinely no kosher uses of it in the wild, that ought to be harmless, and user-friendly. Regards, Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England NG80 1ZZ
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 15:49:40 UTC