On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:25:58 -0000, Simon Reinhardt
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Keith Alexander wrote:
Can you explain why you prefer sioc:has_container to dcterms:isPartOf ?
Let's call it consistent use of a vocabulary. Since I'm using SIOC for
lots of things in the platform anyway (like, most resources in my
dataset are sioc:Items) it makes sense to use SIOC the way it is
expected to be used. Then again I also want to use voiD the way it is
expected to be used, so I'm in a dilemma. :-)
I don't think sioc:has_container (and its domain and range classes) are
altogether fitting here (it seems to me anyway), and I think there's a
danger that aligning would dilute, rather than consolidate, the semantics
of voiD and SIOC.
In the Guide, we advocate foaf:Document -> dcterms:isPartOf ->
voiD:Dataset as a solution for "following-your-nose" from a dereferenced
URI back to the dataset it belongs to. But the foaf:Document isn't really
an intrinsic 'item' of the dataset - it's just an artifact of the dataset
being published as dereferencable LOD. In this sense, I don't see too much
value in alignment anyway - the ":Document dcterms:isPartOf :Dataset"
triple is only there to let users/agents navigate back to the void:Dataset
description. If you were to publish the dataset purely as a dump, I doubt
there would be too much point in wrapping up each resource as an Item or a
Document, or whatever, which links back to the Dataset. It's only when
publishing them as discrete web pages that we want some way of explicitly
linking back to the dataset, so that the dataset description is
discoverable.
But maybe I'm missing something, so if you can explain the utility of
publishing datasets as SIOC, and defend the semantic common-ground of the
concepts, please do :)
Yours,
Keith
