- From: Stephen Pollei <stephen_pollei@comcast.net>
- Date: 14 Jan 2004 08:43:38 -0800
- To: Victor Lindesay <victor@schemaweb.info>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 11:52:55 UTC
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 05:10, Victor Lindesay wrote: > > ... but I'd hesitate to use "anti-social" in this context. > I think what we are all talking about is good / bad practice rather than > something that warrants the use of 'anti-social' and 'burden on the > community'. That is quite right. good Vs. Bad practice is better way of saying it. > Then he comes to 'date'. Should he > use dc:date and introduce just one term from the Core into his vocab or > subclass dc:date and preserve a consistent namespace across his schema. > What would you do? I personally would subclass. Others may re-use. > Either way is perfectly valid and ultimately it really doesn't matter. I think that either way is valid, but not subproping in this instance is bad practice. I also think it matters albeit in a very very minor way. On counterpoint if he must use lots of terms from Dublin core, or if he uses a lot of terms that are not really essential to his vocab then using subclass/subprop etc would be bad practice. The proper balance is key.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 11:52:55 UTC