- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:52:12 +0100
- To: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 20:19 09/06/2002 -0700, Garret Wilson wrote: [...] >Well, let's say I have another work (urn:x-books:book2) that has the same >dc:creator of urn:x-people:jane-doe---but in this case, Jane is the author, >not the annotator. If the b-node above is the same as urn:x-people:jane-doe, >then there's a big problem: Jane Doe would be listed as the annotator of >urn:x-books:book2, even though she's the *author* of that work. That is, >once a non-b-node Jane Doe gets an oebps:role, she *always* has that role. Just so and I thought that was why you had structured things this way. How then how do we think of the type of that b-node. If we think of it as "person-in-role" and "person-in-role" is a subclass of person, then the range constraint of the creator property is maintained and that is fine. But then the use of rdf:value, whilst not wrong, since RDF defines no formal semantics for it, doesn't quite feel right to me. I'd have used a more specific property, e.g. person. I'm not arguing that your modeling is wrong; at this stage I'm just trying to understand it. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 07:26:21 UTC