[Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins top-level useful?

[Philippe Martin]

> You actually want the "expires jan 1, 2010" to apply to the 
> reified statement that "Adam has HairColor blonde"
> rather than to the value of "Adam  hasHairColor"

If so, what was insufficient with statement reification in RDF
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#higherorder)
to require the additional classes and relations?



> Finally, the reason for all of those XML Schema-inspired Value sub-classes
> is to be able to express that the "hasHairColor" property has a range of
> "StringSimpleValue" --that is to be precise about the type of the value
> instead of only being able to say that "hasHairColor" has a range of "Value".

Is it for allowing some minimal knowledge checking without having to include
classes such as higgins#Color in the top-level model?
But then, higgins#Color has to be declared in other ontologies as
a kind of string (not as a kind of quality or a region, to re-use the 
distincrions of Dolce), or is not even declared (like pwa#Firstname was 
not declared in Higgins' Person ontology, only the property pwa#firstname
was declared), thus leading to knowledge entering and matching problems
(as illustrated in my email of yesterday) ... unless I am missing something.


Philippe