On 4/22/11 1:35 PM, Bob Ferris wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 4/22/2011 6:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality
info in the label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is
the better choice as compared to the alternatives.
I really don'
Hi Martin,
On 4/22/2011 6:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
So our only disagreement seems to be about having the cardinality info in the
label, and I think that, at least for the moment, that is the better choice as
compared to the alternatives.
I really don't understand why you need this cardinal
On 4/22/11 12:18 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
Hi Nathan, Kingsley:
My point is that I want anybody using any ontology / annotation tool to
immediately spot the cardinality recommendation. rdfs:label is displayed by all
/ most tools.
Yes, but time to stop accepting in appropriate patterns :-)
rdfs:
Hi Nathan, Kingsley:
My point is that I want anybody using any ontology / annotation tool to
immediately spot the cardinality recommendation. rdfs:label is displayed by all
/ most tools. if I hide it in rdfs:comment, it is not as accessible. Defining
an owl:AnnotationProperty will be completely
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/22/11 7:36 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
See replies inline ;-)
Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that
the rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web
developers sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a
met
On 4/22/11 7:36 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
See replies inline ;-)
Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that the
rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web developers
sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a method should look like
a
See replies inline ;-)
> Sorry to say this, but I think you are making a mistake. To say that the
> rdfs:label has to look like a variable name because it is for Web developers
> sounds to me like you are saying that the javadoc of a method should look
> like a piece of code because it is addres
See several comments inline.
Le 22/04/2011 09:44, Martin Hepp a écrit :
Hi Tim, all:
First: Thanks for your great feedback.
As for labels vs. identifiers: What I want to do is change the
identifier of a few conceptual elements. The reason why I also
changed the labels in my example is that in
Hi Tim, all:
First: Thanks for your great feedback.
As for labels vs. identifiers: What I want to do is change the identifier of a
few conceptual elements. The reason why I also changed the labels in my example
is that in GoodRelations, labels are historically geared towards the publisher
of d
On 4/21/11 3:19 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
Martin,
Confused.
Do you mean you want to change the localname (the bit after the namespace in
the URI) or the label?
In your examples below, you have the same string for the localname and label.
This looks like a bug. Let me explain things from the
Martin,
Confused.
Do you mean you want to change the localname (the bit after the namespace in
the URI) or the label?
In your examples below, you have the same string for the localname and label.
This looks like a bug. Let me explain things from the point of view of the
tabulator, for example,
11 matches
Mail list logo
