- From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:18:19 -0500
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > (And I'd like to reduce the set of properties where possible. I prefer to > use partOf/hasPart instead of distinct properties for each possible range, > unless required by use cases. Externally linked parts/containers can be > typed too, to mitigate the risk of consumers not getting the nature of the > composition.) Agreed, but as noted previously I was adopting the approach used by Series/Season/Episode as a means of not building too many prerequisites into the proposal. Managing scope and all that. A strategy I've been musing about, though, was to bring forward the proposal to public-vocabs with the full set of partOf*/has* properties, but mention something like "Note that this introduces 6 new hasPart/partOf* properties, and that's only likely to grow over time; we also happen to have this Collection proposal [1] that would solve this problem generally. Wouldn't that be nice? Would you like to see an alternate version of this proposal that uses Collection?" 1. http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 22:18:47 UTC