search

RDARegistry / RDA-Vocabularies

http://www.rdaregistry.info
63 stars 16 forks source link

typo in Registry > Tools > Guide for developers > Internal semantics #181

Closed briesenberg07 closed 1 year ago

briesenberg07 commented 1 year ago

The Guide for developers > Internal semantics page has example statements which don't make sense given the predicate in the first statement:

image

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix ex: <http://example.com/> .

ex:1 rdawo:P10249 ex:2 ; # ex:1 is adapted as video game ex:2
   rdawo:P10436 ex:2 ; # 'has author person' doesn't make sense if, per rdawo:P10249, ex:2 is rdac:Work
   rdawo:P10203 ex:2 . # 'has screenwriter agent' also doesn't make sense if ex:2 is rdac:Work

ex:2 rdf:type rdac:C10004 . # Doesn't make sense given range of predicate in first statement (per rdawo:P10249, ex:2 would be C10001)
GordonDunsire commented 1 year ago

@briesenberg07: Good catch! Looks like we mashed up two separate element hierarchies by mistake. It should now be fixed; thanks for bringing it to our attention.