- From: Guha <guha@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:12:49 -0700
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPAGhv86ak93-wP_faC3U0SXvzA59buPpRA6Pf31GukZCsHC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
I completely agree that there isn't a single solution that will work in all cases. I think we should just use a pragmatic (i.e., case by case) analysis. guha On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Guha, > > The discussion is about the difference between ontology definition and > instance creation. When is it appropriate to define multiple types in the > ontology definition vs. assigning multiple types to an instance? > > To librarians this is the "pre-coordinated vs. post-coordinated" issue, > but for non-librarians it probably makes more sense to talk about comparing > complex and "complete" concepts vs. modular and combinable concepts. > > I don't think there is a single answer because it is contextual, but I can > see some advantages in creating simple ontology definitions that can be > combined in various ways at the time of instance creation. > > kc > > > > > On 9/25/13 6:50 AM, Guha wrote: > >> Clearly, the syntax needs to support multiple types for an object. We >> already do that ... not sure I see the issue. >> >> Sorry for being slow ... >> >> guha >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Martin Hepp >> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.**org <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> >> <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-**unibw.org<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Karen, >> good that we have consensus. >> >> Dan, Guha: I think the issue of whether multi-type entities should >> be solved >> >> a) at markup time or >> b) in the vocabulary >> >> is of generic relevance - do you have an opinion on that? >> >> I think that for types that are not disjoint but also only loosely >> related (like an AudioBook used as a Product), it is much cleaner >> and flexible to recommend using both types at markup time. >> >> This also decouples the evolution of such needs / use cases from the >> evolution of the schema.org <http://schema.org> spec - site owners >> do not have to wait for an update to schema.org <http://schema.org>, >> >> and search engines can learn from the appearance of new patterns. >> >> Martin >> >> On Sep 24, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On 9/24/13 11:40 AM, Martin Hepp wrote: >> >> Hi Karen, >> >> as already posted earlier today: >> > >> >> >> >> Simply use the offers property from Product or the itemOffered >> property from offer and make the AudioBook (or other object) of type >> AudioBook AND Product. >> > >> > Yes, thanks, Martin. I saw that on your reply to Dan and that >> seems to be exactly what we need. >> > >> > kc >> > >> > -- >> > Karen Coyle >> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >> > m: 1-510-435-8234 <tel:1-510-435-8234> >> >> > skype: kcoylenet >> > >> >> ------------------------------**-------------------------- >> martin hepp >> e-business & web science research group >> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >> >> e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org <mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.**org<hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> >> > >> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-**4217> >> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 <tel:%2B49-%280%2989-6004-**4620> >> >> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >> skype: mfhepp >> twitter: mfhepp >> >> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! >> ==============================**==============================**===== >> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet >
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 16:13:17 UTC