- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:21:38 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Richard, I'm suggesting that it might be an adjustment to the commonEndeavor proposal. Can we have a discussion of that to get group consensus? kc On 2/21/13 8:54 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: > I didn't record it as an action as I saw it just as a possible adjustment I > could make to the Work-Instance proposal - which I will do (possibly as a > discussion point) soon. > > ~Richard. > > > On 21/02/2013 16:11, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> I recall that we hit on "versionOf" at some point (it doesn't show up in >> the chat). It seems to me that we need to decide if that has the >> semantics of "sub-class" or "related" -- in other words, whether it is a >> vertical or horizontal relationship, and if horizontal then do we see it >> as an inverse property? >> >> I would probably answer "no" to that last question, and suggest that >> "versionOf" simply says that A is a versionOf B with no implication as >> to which came first or which is dominant. It would be correct to say >> that A is a versionOf B and B is a versionOf A, but we would not infer >> that A is a versionOf B and B is a versionOf C means that A is a version >> of C (not transitive). >> >> I realize that this is NOT what "instanceOf" is intended to do because >> instanceOf requires the link to be aware of class/sub-class >> relationships. One could use "versionOf" in place of "instanceOf" in the >> proposal, and that would then define a class/sub-class relationship >> between things. I'm wary of this because I think the real world case is >> messier than class/sub-class. >> >> kc >> >> On 2/20/13 12:40 PM, Richard Wallis wrote: >>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219 > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2013 15:22:09 UTC