[foaf-dev] relationship vocabulary suggestions for improvement

Story Henry 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
>>> of
>>> employedBy shouldn't be foaf:Person, but foaf:Organisation (and
>>> similarly,
>>> 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,
>                <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>;
>         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.
> 
> Henry


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list