domains for created_at

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — Thomas Schandl

Hi!

There seems to be a conflict in which domains "created_at" has. The
specification says its domain is sioc:Post, but in the namespace
document it is sioc:Post AND sioc:User.

Property: sioc:created_at

created_at - When this was created, in ISO 8601 format.
Domain: sioc:Post
Range: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal

rdfs:comment="When this was created, in ISO 8601 format."
rdfs:label="created_at">

Bye,
Thomas

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Developers

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — CaptSolo

domains for created_at

On 7/18/06, Thomas Schandl
wrote:
> There seems to be a conflict in which domains "created_at" has. The
> specification says its domain is sioc:Post, but in the namespace
> document it is sioc:Post AND sioc:User.

[...]

> > rdfs:comment="When this was created, in ISO 8601 format."
> rdfs:label="created_at">
>
>

The domain is a sioc:Post. Was fixed in the subversion repository, but
the namespace document on rdfs.org was not updated yet. Fixed now. In
any case it was incorrect to have 2 different domains because it would
mean that a resource that is the subject of sioc:created_at is both a
Post and a User at the same time.

Thanks for pointing this out.

We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
dc:date instead. But a post may have more than one date - e.g. - date
when it was created and when it was last modified as currently defined
by sioc:created_at and sioc:modified_at.

Best,
Uldis

[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — Jack Park

domains for created_at

+1 for moving some of the namespaces over to standards such as dc.

Jack

On 7/31/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
>
> On 7/18/06, Thomas Schandl
wrote:
> > There seems to be a conflict in which domains "created_at" has. The
> > specification says its domain is sioc:Post, but in the namespace
> > document it is sioc:Post AND sioc:User.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > rdfs:comment="When this was created, in ISO 8601 format."
> > rdfs:label="created_at">
> >
> >
>
> The domain is a sioc:Post. Was fixed in the subversion repository, but
> the namespace document on rdfs.org was not updated yet. Fixed now. In
> any case it was incorrect to have 2 different domains because it would
> mean that a resource that is the subject of sioc:created_at is both a
> Post and a User at the same time.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
> dc:date instead. But a post may have more than one date - e.g. - date
> when it was created and when it was last modified as currently defined
> by sioc:created_at and sioc:modified_at.
>
> Best,
> Uldis
>
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
>
> >
>

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — Christoph Görn

domains for created_at

Ja, removing redundancy sounds always good to me...

Christoph

Am 31.07.2006 um 16:58 schrieb Jack Park:
> +1 for moving some of the namespaces over to standards such as dc.

> On 7/31/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
>> We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
>> dc:date instead.

--
blogging at: http://B4mad.Net/datenbrei
info at: http://B4mad.Net/FOAF/goern.rdf#goern
gpg key: http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?
op=get&search=0xB10DFF8D88FD746C
x509 root ca certificate: http://b4mad.net/CA/

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — CaptSolo

domains for created_at

That's true. The question is - what to do with sioc:modified_at.

Like I said before we can also subclass both sioc:created_at and
sioc:modified_at from dc:date. That's what we should do if we keep
them.

Uldis

[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]

Christoph Görn wrote:
> Ja, removing redundancy sounds always good to me...
>
> Christoph
>
> Am 31.07.2006 um 16:58 schrieb Jack Park:
> > +1 for moving some of the namespaces over to standards such as dc.
>
> > On 7/31/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
> >> We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
> >> dc:date instead.

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — CaptSolo

domains for created_at

Thanks to Christoph for pointing this out on IRC ( #sioc at
irc.freenode.net ):

In Dublin Core Terms namespace [ http://purl.org/dc/terms/ ] there are
already properties 'created' and 'modified' which allow to say when the
resource was created or modified. Both are subClassOf dc:date.

We should be using them instead of sioc:created_at and sioc:modified_at
then.

Uldis

[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]

Uldis Bojars wrote:
> That's true. The question is - what to do with sioc:modified_at.
>
> Like I said before we can also subclass both sioc:created_at and
> sioc:modified_at from dc:date. That's what we should do if we keep
> them.
>
> Uldis
>
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
>
> Christoph Görn wrote:
> > Ja, removing redundancy sounds always good to me...
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> > Am 31.07.2006 um 16:58 schrieb Jack Park:
> > > +1 for moving some of the namespaces over to standards such as dc.
> >
> > > On 7/31/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
> > >> We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
> > >> dc:date instead.

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — Jack Park

domains for created_at

+1 on taking every step you can to use existing standards,
microformats, whatever.

Jack

On 8/1/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to Christoph for pointing this out on IRC ( #sioc at
> irc.freenode.net ):
>
> In Dublin Core Terms namespace [ http://purl.org/dc/terms/ ] there are
> already properties 'created' and 'modified' which allow to say when the
> resource was created or modified. Both are subClassOf dc:date.
>
> We should be using them instead of sioc:created_at and sioc:modified_at
> then.
>
> Uldis
>
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
>
> Uldis Bojars wrote:
> > That's true. The question is - what to do with sioc:modified_at.
> >
> > Like I said before we can also subclass both sioc:created_at and
> > sioc:modified_at from dc:date. That's what we should do if we keep
> > them.
> >
> > Uldis
> >
> > [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
> >
> > Christoph Görn wrote:
> > > Ja, removing redundancy sounds always good to me...
> > >
> > > Christoph
> > >
> > > Am 31.07.2006 um 16:58 schrieb Jack Park:
> > > > +1 for moving some of the namespaces over to standards such as dc.
> > >
> > > > On 7/31/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
> > > >> We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
> > > >> dc:date instead.
>
>
> >
>

2006, September 2 - 17:57 — Alexandre Passant

domains for created_at

Hi all,

On 8/1/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
>
> That's true. The question is - what to do with sioc:modified_at.
>
> Like I said before we can also subclass both sioc:created_at and
> sioc:modified_at from dc:date. That's what we should do if we keep
> them.

At the moment, maybe we could just keep sioc:created_at - as a
subclass of dc:date - , and move modified_at to the future versionning
module of SIOC ?
created_at should be enough for the "core" vocab.

Alex.

> Uldis
>
> [ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]
>
> Christoph Görn wrote:
> > Ja, removing redundancy sounds always good to me...
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> > Am 31.07.2006 um 16:58 schrieb Jack Park:
> > > +1 for moving some of the namespaces over to standards such as dc.
> >
> > > On 7/31/06, Uldis Bojars wrote:
> > >> We could also drop the sioc:created_at property altogether and use
> > >> dc:date instead.
>
>
> >
>

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

domains for created_at

Primary links

Syndicate

User login