At Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:59:17 -0700,
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Erik Hetzner <>:
> > They are different realms of description, but the thing described (a
> > person) is the same in both, as I see it.
> You may see it that way, but the developers of the two schemas  
> obviously did not because they have almost NO properties in common.  
> The properties define the scope of the entity. I think that we  
> naturally get "conned" by language, so when we see the term Person we  
> have pre-conceived notions. Those aren't borne out in this case.

Are you talking about the FOAF and FBRR [1] RDF schemas?

From the FRBR schema, I read:

  frbr:Person rdf:type owl:Class 
              owl:equivalentClass foaf:Person .

I am not sure of the exact semantics of equivalentClass in OWL, but it
seems to mean that a FRBR person is the same as a FOAF person. (Of
course the authors of the (unofficial) FRBR schema [1] are not
necessarily correct on this question.)

best, Erik


Attachment: pgp2qwDZrDArl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Ol-tech mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to

Reply via email to