[foaf-dev] relationship vocabulary suggestions for improvement
henry.story at bblfish.net
Tue Feb 16 18:08:37 CET 2010
On 16 Feb 2010, at 18:03, Whitley, Zachary C. wrote:
>> "Asserted that this property is a sub-property of owl:differentFrom, indicating that this is a relationship between different individuals"
> Does this preclude people from being selfemployed?
yep, quite right. This indeed should not be a relation that can be reflexive.
> On 15 Feb 2010, at 21:37, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>>> I haven't followed the debate too closely, but I think that the range
>>> employedBy shouldn't be foaf:Person, but foaf:Organisation (and
>>> especially if one wishes to maintain the inverse, the domain of
>>> employerOf). Surely, it is much more common to be employed by a company
>>> than a person?
>> It seems to me that both employedBy and employerOf have a range of
>> foaf:Agent rather than foaf:Person or foaf:Organization.
> Currently this is what we have:
> <http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/employedBy> a rdf:Property;
> :domain <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
> :isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/>;
> :label "employed by"@en;
> :range <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
> :subPropertyOf owl:differentFrom,
> owl:inverseOf <http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/employerOf>;
> skos:definition "A person for whom this person's services have been engaged."@en;
> skos:historyNote [
> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator> "Ian Davis";
> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date> "2010-02-09";
> rdf:value "Asserted that this property is a sub-property of owl:differentFrom, indicating that this is a relationship between different individuals" ] .
> And I do agree: It would be much better if the domain were foaf:Agent.
> It follows of course that in that case it should not be a subrelation of foaf:knows.
> Otherwise I notice that a lot of the other points have been taken into consideration! Cool :-) This ontology is quickly getting to be a lot better.
More information about the foaf-dev