 |
 |
Ray, can you explain why this doesn't work if the range of bf:agent is bf:Agent? Thanks, kc On 8/27/15 1:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote: > > * bf:agent <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234> * > > And again it depends on how/whether we define a range for bf:agent. > If we define the range to be class bf:Agent, then no, we cannot. I > think most of us are inclined not to want to restrict the vocabulary > in this manner, and to allow such a contraction. > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600