- From: Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:33:20 -0600
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > Hi Peter: > > It would make sense to make a license of your ontology a subclass of > > http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#BusinessFunction > > since that really is a class representing specifications of access rights to > a resource (with "Sell" and "LeaseOut" bying very generic, retail-oriented > instances). Perhaps. That seems a stretch to me. <http://purl.org/dc/terms/LicenseDocument> seems like a more logical superclass to me. What would be the advantage of using BusinessFunction rather than dc:LicenseDocument? Peter
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 17:33:56 UTC