- From: Charlie Jiang <chjiang@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:14:56 +0000
- To: "lrmi@googlegroups.com" <lrmi@googlegroups.com>, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
I echo that isPartOf, hasPart and Collection belong to same group of concept, which is for constructing relationships or graphs. -----Original Message----- From: lrmi@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Grossmeier Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:56 PM To: Richard Wallis Cc: Dan Brickley; lrmi@googlegroups.com; public-vocabs@w3.org Subject: Re: Move isPartOf to CreativeWork from WebPage? <quote name="Richard Wallis" date="2012-09-28" time="20:20:46 +0100"> > However, CollectionPage is a bit restrictive - I was hoping that there > was a generic CreativeWork/Collection to relate to. I would have > thought this would also make more sense for the LMRI community. That was actually in my first draft of the email I sent, but I removed it because I couldn't fully communicate the reason (no one won the debate in my head on whether it should be done). The internal debate is now leaning towards generic Collection, for the reason of modeling Collections that either don't have a representative webpage (probably common enough). It is also a great use case of isPartOf without a hasPart option (where would the hasPart="" live?). > >> - add hasPart to CollectionPage > > > > I'm conflicted; it seems useful but I'm wary of introducing inverses > > casually, and for only some of our terms. > > I can understand your reticence, but surely one of the prime > properties of a collection is its part(s). Indeed. At face value it seems odd to have only one one-way arrow in an inherently bidirectional relationship. Greg -- Greg Grossmeier Education Technology & Policy Coordinator twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 20:15:59 UTC