> On 13 May 2015, at 19:16, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> (c) Pick one and have a consistent model, rather than requiring content providing implementers to choose between options and consumers to implement both in order to be interoperable. As the information in the short term will likely be created by conversion scripts, and in the future via editors, no human ever needs to manually construct the objects in the model, so there is no opportunity cost in doing the right thing.
> Which could be simplified to:
> (c`) Always have a resource, and allow it to be very simple wrapper around a string:
> _:work bf:hasTitle [ rdf:label "Lord of the Flies" ]
+1 to consistency. I don’t think there should be multiple places to look for the title string dependent on what the implementer has chosen to do.
At a simple level having to write a SPARQL query which deals with the possibility of the title string in different places would be a real pain.
The pattern Rob describes is both consistent and extremely common across the linked data world as the way of presenting this.
Owen Stephens Consulting
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936