1

All examples I found use some vocabulary (like FOAF) to link to another resource (knows, spouse, member,...). Is there already a way (or commonly used vocabulary) to express a general "is related to" relation-type? You may also characterize such as link as "additional information here".

Google is surprisingly unhelpful at those topics. Is there any resource for link-relation-types?

Update: This will get me a tumbleweed-badge ;)

schema.org has relatedLink and isRelatedTo properties, the latter one seems to be for products only. I can't find relatedLink by browsing the schema hieracy, only when searching for it, whats kind of strange too. They state its a property of Thing, but it's not listed there.

Would it be OK to give several links to relatedLink using an array?

isherwood
  • 58,414
  • 16
  • 114
  • 157
st_efan
  • 90
  • 7

1 Answers1

1

Is there already a way (or commonly used vocabulary) to express a general "is related to" relation-type

There exists rdfs:seeAlso which is probably the most often used property for such a use case.

Would it be OK to give several links to relatedLink using an array?

Yes. Unless otherwise specified, that's always allowed.

Markus Lanthaler
  • 3,683
  • 17
  • 20
  • Thanks Markus. RDFS wasn't on my radar. I pigeonholed it as a way to make a vocabulary-definition machine readable. – st_efan Aug 20 '15 at 07:25