- From: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:44:39 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
RDF Primer says [1]:
RDF provides a predefined rdf:value property to describe
the main value (if there is one) of a structured value.
and RDF Vocabulary Description Language says [2]:
rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used
in describing structured values.
Are you saying you would not want to use the term "value"
(as in "structured value") because of a clash with "value"
in the name rdf:value?
Note that RDF Semantics says [3]:
The intended use for rdf:value is explained intuitively
in the RDF Primer document [RDF-PRIMER]. It is typically
used to identify a 'primary' or 'main' value of a property
which has several values, or has as its value a complex
entity with several facets or properties of its own.
which seems to say that a property can have "several values".
Tom
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#rdfvalue
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/#ch_value
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#ReifAndCont
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 02:25:25PM +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I am a little bit afraid of the possible mismatch between the term
> 'value' and rdf:value...
>
> Ivan
>
> Thomas Baker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:17:54AM +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >>> But I'm afraid 'general RDF node'is not enough. As specified in the RDF
> >>> concepts, this include literals:
> >>>> A node may be a URI with optional fragment identifier (URI reference,
> >>>> or URIref), a literal, or blank
> >>> So I would rather use 'general non-literal RDF node'
> >>> I hope this does not sound too complex... It's a pity that no one ever
> >>> re-used this Primer's 'structured RDF value thing'? Experts should read
> >>> the primers more often ;-)
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> Yeah, the non-literal addition makes it more precise indeed. It is a bit
> >> complex but, well, that is the way it is...
> >
> > How about "non-literal value"? I can't imagine changing
> > "non-literal value" to "general non-literal RDF node" in,
> > say, [1]. Eyes would roll... :-)
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/11/03/profile-guidelines/#appc
> >
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
--
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 14:45:19 UTC