- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:59:38 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
A short comment on this.... Well, there's a lot of implied but not expressed semantics in the DC properties. We're moving towards expressing at least the domain/range stuff, but we have a way to go before we approach OWL ontologies, That said, I think that it *would* be in line with the definition of isPartOf to say it's transitive. I can't see any arguments against. Of course, talking to DC-ARCH before doing that is a good idea... /Mikael tor 2007-04-26 klockan 11:44 +0200 skrev Ivan Herman: > Elisa already referred to this but let me just reiterate and maybe add > some more details > > The DCMI is currently working on bringing the DC metadata and the RDF > worlds closer together. They have a second round of commenting on the > following documents right now: > > http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/04/02/dc-rdf/ > http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/04/02/abstract-model/ > > and comment period is still open. Comments can be done by signing up to: > > http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=dc-architecture&A=1 > > I copy this mail to Mikael Nilsson, who may not be reading this mailing > list, to give possibly more context. > > I think this discussion is important, it is exactly on time... > > Thanks > > Ivan > > > Yoshio Fukushige wrote: > > Hi, This may be a FAQ, but are there OWL versions of > > Dublin Core Vocabularies? > > > > I checked their official page[1], but there seem to be no > > such versions. > > > > If not, is there any widely-used ontology that refines the > > DC Vocabularies in OWL? > > > > Or are there unofficial versions that are in discussion / under review by DC people? > > > > My current problem is that I want a transitive version of > > http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf . > > > > Should I use a property in other major vocabularies, > > for example > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/part.owl#partOf > > (I'm not sure if it is major, though) > > > > Or defining my own transitive property as a subPropertyOf > > http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf > > would make more sense? > > > > [1] http://dublincore.org/ > > > > Best, > > Yoshio Fukushige > > > -- <mikael@nilsson.name> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 09:59:50 UTC