- From: Martin Hepp <hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:27:25 +0300
- To: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, www-archive@w3.org
really, treating it as a subclass of gr:Brand would not hurt, because gr:Brand is, as said, just something that has a name and that can be associated with a company or product. On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Yves Raimond wrote: > Hmm, for that one, I am very very unsure - the notion of brand at the BBC is very specific, and only has meaning in commissioning terms. > > Best, > y > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 04:16:31PM +0200, 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 16:28:01 UTC