Dear Robert,
As I pointed out in my message:
I said "just define precisely what you use it for", and "when a good
community practice emerges".
I recommend NOT to recommend rdf:value, because RDFS 1.1 defines:
"5.4.3 rdf:value rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property
<https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property> that may be used in
describing structured values. rdf:value has no meaning on its own. "
As CRM-SIG, we cannot recommend a property without meaning. We do
ontology here, so the must be a minimal ontological commitment. Are
there other opinions?
Taken the above definition in RDFS 1.1, I question both, the precise use
and the emerging good practice,
until better evidence:-).
Do you have better evidence?
It is up to crm-sig to decide, I present only my opinion here.
Best,
martin
On 3/8/2018 6:28 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Martin,
Could you clarify why you have changed your mind about rdf:value?
> I recommend NOT to recommend rdf:value
In particular, in the last week you said:
“CRM-SIG normally works reactively: When a good community practice
emerges, this is taken up.”
and
“Whatever the vast majority is and rdf:value does the job, I have no
objections to its use.
Just define precisely what you use it for. We can add that to our
guidelines. It is already standard rdf.”
Thanks,
Rob
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
