- From: Dom Vonarburg <dom@rorweb.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:07:48 -0500
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <002201c4e2c0$39103c20$0201a8c0@Sony>
> I noticed that you coin two properties > ror:resource > (A resource or object associated with this resource) > ror:resourceOf > (A resource or object this resource is associated with (inverse property of > resource)) > Is that necessary? Aren't these two properties for the same relationship type? > i.e. ror:resource is its own inverse? I didn't really understand what was > gained by defining two properties. > And I think ror:resource is equivalent to dc:relation in the DC vocabulary. > Pete > ------- > Pete Johnston Thanks for the feedback! ror:resource and ror:resourceOf are indeed very close in meaning to dc:relation, but not as general however. They are also somewhat close to properties like dc:hasPart/isPartOf and dc:references/isReferencedBy, but not as specific. I see ror:resource as an active relation (e.g. dc:hasPart, dc:references, dc:requires, etc), and ror:resourceOf as its passive counterpart (e.g. dc:isPartOf, dc:isReferencedBy, dc:isRequiresBy, etc). Both properties will be defined as sub-properties of dc:relation. Dom Vonarburg http://www.rorweb.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 16:07:56 UTC