- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:58:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <neil.jacobs@bristol.ac.uk>, <g.conole@bristol.ac.uk>
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Libby Miller wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what you consider to be redundant here. The only things that > > are typed twice are <rdf:type>, <_:1>, and <_:2>. > > Hi Peter > > Thanks for the reply. I wasn't very clear. I'm not concerned with the > syntax, I'm bothered that designing schemas which have similar or > identical names for certain properties and classes is confusing for > authors, and also seems...wrong. Yes, it often does feel somewhat redundant. All representational conventions impose constraints on modelling style. In RDF, the restriction to binary relations is a bit annoying when you want a simple way of saying 'between', for example. In this case, it's pretty live-able with, since your classes can always get recycled for unexpected uses. In the researchInterest/ResearchInterest example you might find re-use for the members of the class ResearchInterest as things a dc:subject or moz:topic might point to. Dan -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 11:59:07 UTC