On Jun 21, 2016 10:32 AM, "Tom Johnson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> It's probably not a good idea to use rdf:value with bibframe, as
the bibframe RDF convention is to use separate properties for object and
data values.
> Can you say more about this Simon? Does rdf:value have special meaning
w.r.t. owl:ObjectProperty/DataProperty that I'm not aware of?

The problem is that the whole namespace is that rdf: is one of the reserved
vocabularies in OWL, and only explicitly listed names from the reserved
vocabularies can be used in OWL 2 DL (and the fast subsets like RL, EL, and

The reason for not including rdf:value is that it can take values that can
be either literals or things.  The best that can be done with it in a
non-strict parser is to treat it as an annotation property (which makes it
invisible to reasoners).

It's an inconvenient convenience property ; a pair of properties like
bf:text  and bf:ref would require less typing, with better Typing.