Re: Values and rdf:value

O.k., you got me:-)

All this confusion (for me) comes from the fact that, indeed, I never
paid attention to this 'structured value' term in the primer and never
used it:-(

I also have to say that at first reading I do not understand what they
meant by

[[[
     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.
]]]

I guess what they mean is that the object of rdf:value is a 'general
non-literal resource' that I used in my previous mail.

Sigh...

Ivan


Thomas Baker wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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