> At the moment all of this is just MusicBrainz data (apart from the image) > but we will be adding more BBCness in the future...
> Any comments/suggestions?
It looks really nice :-) As a side-note: mo:homepage and mo:member are two new properties susbsuming respectively foaf:homepage and foaf:member. They are in the live OWL ontology, but not yet in the documentation (will be in the next round of revision).
>> At the moment all of this is just MusicBrainz data (apart from the >> image) >> but we will be adding more BBCness in the future...
>> Any comments/suggestions?
> It looks really nice :-) > As a side-note: > mo:homepage and mo:member are two new properties susbsuming > respectively foaf:homepage and foaf:member. They are in the live OWL > ontology, but not yet in the documentation (will be in the next round > of revision).
>>> At the moment all of this is just MusicBrainz data (apart from the >>> image) >>> but we will be adding more BBCness in the future...
>>> Any comments/suggestions?
>> It looks really nice :-) >> As a side-note: >> mo:homepage and mo:member are two new properties susbsuming >> respectively foaf:homepage and foaf:member. They are in the live OWL >> ontology, but not yet in the documentation (will be in the next round >> of revision).
Btw, I just had a small chat with Dan Brickley on IRC. He is not convinced the RDF should use mo:member and mo:homepage instead of foaf:member and foaf:homepage. But, to quote him, "its no big deal. and totally overshadowed by the fabulousness of this shipping! :)".
>>>> At the moment all of this is just MusicBrainz data (apart from the >>>> image) >>>> but we will be adding more BBCness in the future...
>>>> Any comments/suggestions?
>>> It looks really nice :-) >>> As a side-note: >>> mo:homepage and mo:member are two new properties susbsuming >>> respectively foaf:homepage and foaf:member. They are in the live OWL >>> ontology, but not yet in the documentation (will be in the next round >>> of revision).
> Btw, I just had a small chat with Dan Brickley on IRC. > He is not convinced the RDF should use mo:member and mo:homepage > instead of foaf:member and foaf:homepage. But, to quote him, "its no > big deal. and totally overshadowed by the fabulousness of this > shipping! :)".
Well, we propose the use of foaf:member, and mo:homepage is not part of the spec anymore. So, is it because it was based on an earlier version of MO?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Frederick Giasson <f...@fgiasson.com> wrote:
> Hi Yves,
>> Btw, I just had a small chat with Dan Brickley on IRC. >> He is not convinced the RDF should use mo:member and mo:homepage >> instead of foaf:member and foaf:homepage. But, to quote him, "its no >> big deal. and totally overshadowed by the fabulousness of this >> shipping! :)".
> Well, we propose the use of foaf:member, and mo:homepage is not part of > the spec anymore. So, is it because it was based on an earlier version > of MO?
Actually, it is in the RDF, but the specification hasn't been re-generated since (I think the time is coming for a new revision, btw :-) ) I also don't think it is not too much of a big deal, as they are rdfs:subPropertyOf the corresponding properties in FOAF (and just restrict their domain to artists and groups). But I really have no strong opinions on that.
> Actually, it is in the RDF, but the specification hasn't been > re-generated since (I think the time is coming for a new revision, btw > :-) )
Doh; forgot to check the latest revision in the svn ;)
> I also don't think it is not too much of a big deal, as they are > rdfs:subPropertyOf the corresponding properties in FOAF (and just > restrict their domain to artists and groups). But I really have no > strong opinions on that.
Well, not really for mo:homepage according to what is on the CSV. Same name, but not same definition (so purpose I think). It is a subclassof isPrimaryTopicOf.
Also, I don't think that mo:member can be a subclassof foaf:member for this reason:
the property domain extension of foaf:member is foaf:Group; the property domain extension of mo:member is mo:MusicGroup that is a subclass of both mo:MusicArtist and foaf:Group.
So the question is: is mo:MusicArtist + foaf:Group a subset of foaf:Group? If we can find an individual fo mo:MusicArtist that is not in foaf:Group then we can't assert that mo:member is a subpropertyof foaf:member.
>> Actually, it is in the RDF, but the specification hasn't been >> re-generated since (I think the time is coming for a new revision, btw >> :-) )
> Doh; forgot to check the latest revision in the svn ;)
>> I also don't think it is not too much of a big deal, as they are >> rdfs:subPropertyOf the corresponding properties in FOAF (and just >> restrict their domain to artists and groups). But I really have no >> strong opinions on that.
> Well, not really for mo:homepage according to what is on the CSV. Same > name, but not same definition (so purpose I think). It is a subclassof > isPrimaryTopicOf.
> Also, I don't think that mo:member can be a subclassof foaf:member for > this reason:
> the property domain extension of foaf:member is foaf:Group; the property > domain extension of mo:member is mo:MusicGroup that is a subclass of > both mo:MusicArtist and foaf:Group.
> So the question is: is mo:MusicArtist + foaf:Group a subset of > foaf:Group? If we can find an individual fo mo:MusicArtist that is not > in foaf:Group then we can't assert that mo:member is a subpropertyof > foaf:member.
Just a brief terminology point: in RDF/S, 'subClassOf' is a relation
between classes. We have subPropertyOf for expressing similar relation
between properties.
Generally sub-classing gets all the attention (in RDFS/OWL as in OO),
but for clarity it's best to say "sub property" if you're talking
about properties.
(I wish we'd called it superProperty, superClass instead of sub*of,
but that's offtopic for this thread :)
|
