W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Vocab Zoo research: gr:Brand, po:Brand

From: Martin Hepp <hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:03:28 +0300
Cc: yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <23585B20-E69E-42DB-A80A-479D56A78BBC@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:58 UTC