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

Re: Vocab terms for owner, validFrom and validUntil

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 07:44:13 +0200
Message-Id: <5292E09E-6BD8-45D4-90B0-D4F67DA3FBB5@danbri.org>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

On 4 May 2012, at 06:21, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> We have created 3 terms for the PaySwarm vocabulary that we think may be
> better off in the rdf or rdfs vocabulary. They have to do with
> "resources" on the Web.

What's a "resource"? 

rdfs:Resource is a synonym for the word Thing; nothing isn't one.

> The first is the canonical "owner" of a resource on the Web. Keep in
> mind that this is different from dc:creator and those types of
> expressions. It could be used to establish the owner of a financial
> account (that uses a web address), a public key that is published to the
> Web, or a variety of other pieces of information that "belong" to an IRI
> identifier (like a person's identifier).

Do these diverse examples ever disagree, overlap?  

Who 'owns' my Facebook account? W3C user account? An apartment i'm renting, or a page about it? A wiki page? My user page on a wiki? Do some things not have such an owner? Can ownership be joint, either by the owner being a group or abstract agent, or by 2+ things being in that relationship at same time?

> The second and third are validity periods for particular pieces of
> information - like when is an offer for a good or service valid from/to?
> When was a home address valid from/to? When was a public key valid from/to?

By valid, do you mean true? Is the assumption that 
-was once not true/valid
-was true/valid
-at some point stops being so
... is a central pattern worth documenting? Even if it doesn't capture eg more cyclical patterns?

> When describing resources on the Web, these three items seem like they'd
> be vital for establishing ownership and information validity periods.
> Should they go in the RDF or RDFS vocabulary?

Why elevate these use cases above others? For example, describing what a  piece of information is 'about' is quite important too. Why not add dc:subject plus SKOS into the core? Or the most useful bits from OWL?

Do you have draft schema definitions for these proposals?

Historically rdf/rdfs vocab has been kept pretty minimalist. I doubt you'll find much enthusiasm for changing that policy at this stage (including rechartering WG etc). 

That said I'd be happy to pick up this thread with a schema.org or FOAF hat on; there are important distinctions lurking here and worth having in a mainstream schema somewhere.



> -- manu
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 05:48:28 UTC

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