At Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:59:17 -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: > > Quoting Erik Hetzner <ehetz...@gmail.com>: > > > 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
1. http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html
pgp2qwDZrDArl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list Ol-tech@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-tech-unsubscr...@archive.org
