- From: Martin Hepp <hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:03:28 +0300
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>, www-archive@w3.org
yes, that fits. for g, a brand is a named conceptual entity. the actual name in gr can be attached using rdfs:label, gr:name, dc:title, whatsoever. martin On Jun 10, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > Hi Martin, Yves, > > I'm investigating naming clashes between popular RDF vocabularies. > > It seems both Good Relations and Programmes Ontology have some notion > of 'Brand'. > > Can we try to figure out together what the relationship might be? > > Can a single thing in the world be both a gr:Brand and po:Brand? is > one a superclass of the other? > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#Brand > "A brand is the identity of a specific product, service, or business. > Use foaf:logo for attaching a brand logo and gr:name or rdfs:label for > attaching the brand name." > > The Programmes ontology usage seems consistent with this, specialised > to TV content, > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ontologies/programmes/2009-09-07.shtml#Brand > "Brand - A brand, e.g. `Top Gear'" > > When I look at that example > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59.rdf I see a dc:title applied > to the brand, whereas gr uses rdfs:label. > > Can we live with saying that po:Brand is a subClass of gr:Brand? Are > there any characteristics of gr:Brand that might make this a poor fit, > Martin? > > Thanks for any thoughts, > > Dan
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 15:03:58 UTC