Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for


I've been very fast in my explanation.
Whatever the interpretation of PropertyValue, we can write:

foo:YourBook schema:additionalProperty x:MartinHeppAsPV.
x:MartinHeppAsPV a PropertyValue;
	propertyID author;
	value x:MartinHeppThePerson

but x:MartinHeppThePerson and x:MartinHeppAsPV are not the same thing.

Must I say that I strongly support Martin's proposal direction? My only concern is the following: it must allow to use a URI for the object of the property (the "feature") when we have one, (and minting one should be encouraged otherwise), because this allows to publish data as they are, and to lift them later.



Le 1 mai 2014 à 16:53, Thad Guidry <> a écrit :

> Francois,
> That's because this:
> foo:YourBook schema:additionalProperty x:MartinHeppThePerson.
> is missing the sub-property for the right context... I.E.  it's missing the word "author"
> 1. perhaps that missing context needs to somehow use "additionalType" ?
> 2. maybe context should just be the "scope" of the Property-Value pairing?
> In .. Contexts and Kinds are referred to and modeled actually as Types. ..(well, that's how we CURRENTLY have designed).
> But Martin's proposal presents a slight variation on the CURRENT Design...that we need, but that we need to get right...and it can be a work in progress starting at Products & Places. Agreed.
> Martin,
>  The new proposal looks fine to me... just wondering about how to handle missing Context, as Francois is hitting upon...would that be through the use of "additionalType" or "scope" or something else ?  Can you mock up an example for his Sunroof case ?
> -- 
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry
> Thad on LinkedIn

Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 16:14:36 UTC