- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:01:32 -0800
- To: Gordon Dunsire <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
- CC: 'Richard Wallis' <richard.wallis@oclc.org>, public-schemabibex@w3.org, "'Young,Jeff \(OR\)'" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "'Vizine-Goetz,Diane'" <vizine@oclc.org>
On 1/6/13 8:27 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote: > Richard > > In the Identifier proposal, the value of the schema.identifier property > includes URIs. > > 1. Assuming that schema.org Type is a synonym for RDF Class (or am I > wrong?), what does this mean for the range of the identifier? Is it a > literal, as in the "urn:nbn:ch:bel-9039" example, or a class, as in the > <examplelib.org/identifier/12345> example, which is an individual member > of the class? I believe that schema.org is purposely avoiding the strict definition of domains and ranges. As it says in the documentation: "The decision to allow multiple domains and ranges was purely pragmatic. While the computational properties of systems with a single domain and range are easier to understand, in practice, this forces the creation of a lot of artifical types, which are there purely to act as the domain/range of some properties. " http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html > > 2. Using the example, is it not true to say in ttl: > > <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> schema.identifier > <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> .? > > If so, <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38264520> is both a schema.Book and > a schema.Identifier … If the two (schema.Book and schema.Identifier) are not disjoint, does it matter? kc > > Cheers > > Gordon > > *From:*Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org] > *Sent:* 03 January 2013 12:36 > *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org > *Cc:* Young,Jeff (OR); Vizine-Goetz,Diane > *Subject:* Some Draft SchemaBibEx Proposals > > Hi all, > > I have pulled some of our thoughts and discussions together into a > couple of draft vocabulary proposals. They can be found on the Wiki > here: <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Vocabulary_Proposals>. > > These are most definitely ‘draft’ proposals and are there as a > foundation for us to work on. > > I am not precious about any of the Type or Property names I have used, > or any of the descriptive text either. If you have better suggestions, > dive in and share! > > I have included some example RDF – I will add some RDFa and possibly > other format examples later. I am holding off for a few days on this, > as I am in discussion with the W3C hosting people about adding a syntax > highlighting extension added to the Wiki which will make code examples > far more readable. > > Regards, > Richard. > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 18:02:02 UTC