- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 19:13:54 +0100
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Bernard Vatant wrote: >Hi Dan > >I think this issue is more general than the DC example. In many use cases, people want >properties to be migrated to OWL without having to decide if they become Object or >Datatype, because they need both, typically the former when values are controlled >(reference to known individuals), and the latter when they are not. > >IMO the original DC properties should keep this flexibility and stay as they are as >unspecified rdf:property, but more specific subproperties could be defined to use in OWL, >one Object and one Datatype, such as > >dc:creator > dc:creator_object > dc:creator_data > >Certainly better names are to be found, but that's the idea. > >How does that sound? > > Sounds plausible to me, but the granularity of the "is this in DL or not" question is at the schema/ontology/namespace level, not at the property level. So you could make a separate namespace that was pure DL, and declare the sub-property relationships in one or the other namesace, but I don't know that having the new DL-happy stuff in the same namespace as the older properties would solve anything, since you still couldn't use that in a DL-based system. I think :) Dan
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 18:13:55 UTC