Print

Print


On 16 May 2013, at 19:12, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Oh, now I'm re-reading this and I see your example in a different light. Let me see if I get it:
> 
> 
> On 5/16/13 10:31 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> 
>> On 5/16/13 8:08 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>>> You are correct in the direction of the relationship, but the thing I was really getting at was the additional layer. SCoRO actually does something more like:
>>> 
>>> PersonB -> hasRole -> Role1
>>> Role1 -> isAuthorOf -> BookA
> 
> This works if Role1 is a unique URI, am I right? You've just added one step of indirection. But it isn't re-usable, if I'm not mistaken -- it only can be used once, to link PersonB to BookA. Therefore, why not:
> 
> PersonB -> isAuthorOf -> BookA
> 
> What advantage do you get from the extra triple? (Or has my brain melted down?) It still doesn't accommodate a string as role. 
> 

That's correct. The additional URI for Role1 means you can make other statements about the role. In the case of SCoRO they make statements about the time period and the nature of the role. They use a class to express the nature of the role, but they could do it equally with the string - they choose not to allow closer control of the vocabulary being used

Owen