Re: ROR - Resources of a Resource

> 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

Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 16:07:56 UTC