W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: rdf:value instead bibo:content

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:09:04 +0100
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DD65428F-D47E-4F6E-98B4-CC9ABE72A256@garlik.com>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Exactly - hence my suggestion to defang it, and make it more like what the (english language) description sounds like.

Quoting from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value

"5.4.3 rdf:value

rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used in describing structured values.

rdf:value has no meaning on its own. It is provided as a piece of vocabulary that may be used in idioms such as illustrated inexample 16 of the RDF primer [RDF-PRIMER]. Despite the lack of formal specification of the meaning of this property, there is value in defining it to encourage the use of a common idiom in examples of this kind."

- Steve

On 8 Jun 2012, at 16:57, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> One problem with rdf:value is that it is an "attractive nuisance".
> Developers see what appears to be a nice clean pool of water in which to place their ontology, and don't notice the acid that will eventually break it down, nor the slick walls that prevent extraction..
> peter
> On 06/08/2012 11:49 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
>> 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 16:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:18 UTC