- From: Tim Bray <twbray@antarcti.ca>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-tag@w3.org
TimBL wrote:
>
>I suspect the "purpose" should be the Property linking the two.
>rddl:Resource is just too vague to be useful, and to specify
>a generic relationship and then qualify it (via an intremedite
>node) with a property which gives the real relationship
>is a form of reification.
I see the point but also a problem: you may not know - or
want to assert - the purpose. You may just want to say
"here's a CSS stylesheet" or "here's a DTD". The current
setup allows you to decide which of {nature-only,
purpose-only, nature+purpose} you want to provide. In
fact rddl:Resource is a perfectly clear (albeit lightweight)
property, asserting "this resource is related", in fact
it should perhaps be renamed "rddl:Related". It also
now dawns on me that with the RDF setup, I can easily and
economically give a related resource two different purposes,
i.e. some XSD schema is provided *both* for authoring
support and CVS-checkin-time validation. -Tim
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 11:11:13 UTC