- From: Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:31:49 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web mailing list <semantic-web@w3.org>
2012/8/6 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>: > On 08/06/2012 08:25 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: >> 2012/8/6 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>: > This might do the trick. Perhaps, however, adding something like > Berlin:statement v:property p:Population > would be better, albeit with the cost of adding an extra triple to the > encoding. However, that should probably go hand-in-hand with changing > v:Population to something like v:value. I'm also not sure what role > q:Population has here, as it does not show up in the document. Changing v:Population to v:value is not nice, as it would make a rdfs:range axiom very hard to state. The q:Population would only be shown if it is actually used, i.e. in this case it wouldn't. Thanks for pointing this out. > Even though this might be somewhat useful, I think that it would end up > being confusing. If you need an rdfs:label then something more like > "population statement" would be more in keeping with what I think of as a > label. I understand your point and will think about it. > I meant to say to remove the RDF encoding from the document and replacing > them by a blanket statement that the RDF encoding of the OWL axioms is > included in an RDF export format. I put them into a collapsible field to make them less prominent. This makes the page a bit more readable. Thank you for the suggestion! Thanks again for the time and the comments, very appreciated. Cheers, Denny
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 09:32:17 UTC