- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:12:43 -0500
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 01:27:53PM -0500, Jeff Young wrote: > > The problem with a hypothetical DatatypeProperty called creatorFoo > > is that we wouldn't want to say that a literal string created > > something. > > Rather, the intention would be to say that the creator has a name, > > and the name is represented by a literal string. In other words, > > creatorFoo would need to be something like a "shortcut property": > > "Resource has creator X, which has foaf:name Y". > > Specifying creatorFoo (e.g. creatorLabel) as rdfs:subPropertyOf > rdfs:label (or skos:prefLabel) should make it clear this property is a > label for the creator rather than the creator itself. This could be > reinforced in the human documentation of the property. Here's the basic > idea: > > ex:doc1 > x-dcterms:creatorLabel "William Shakespeare" ; > x-dcterms:creatorRef ex:shakespeare . # and/or I am putting this on a list of issues for the DCMI Usage Board to discuss! > ex:shakespeare an x-dcterms:Agent ; > rdfs:label "William Shakespeare" . # skos:prefLabel should be > even better Or foaf:name? > You could recommend skos:inScheme on the ex:shakespeare resource to > indicate "authority control". This suggests it might be tempting to use > skos:Concept as the range for all ObjectProperties to minimize the > ontological commitment. This would allow others to use foaf:focus to > model reality as they see fit. Or one could remain silent on the range and allow skos:Concept (harmlessly) to be inferred from the use of foaf:focus. Thanks for the suggestion! I'd be interested to hear if others on this list would also find such a property to be useful. Tom -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Saturday, 4 December 2010 21:13:21 UTC