- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:39:29 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Karen, I support your proposal to use realistic examples, although they should also be kept brief so they are easy to understand. We should avoid completely generic names, or nonsense names like foo and bar. The WG requires that all language features be justified by real-world use cases, so there should be no problem in finding names that illustrate each language feature. For example, to illustrate the predicate pair LessThanConstraint, birthDate and deathDate are perfect. -- Arthur On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > As I think I have mentioned before, I feel that many of the current examples > are perhaps overly brief and may be hard to read for many people. I would > like to suggest that we at least approximate real examples "to the extent > possible", using terms that may be familiar to readers. > > Looking at the Linked Open Vocabularies[1] list of vocabularies, the top > four, based on use, are: > > DCterms http://purl.org/dc/terms/ > DCelements http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ > FOAF http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ > SKOS http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core > > The actual use of these is better understood via the statistics on term > use.[2] > > I would be happy to contribute new examples for the (very few) examples that > I understand, but if I can get some help with understanding what is there I > will be able to do even more. > > If anyone thinks this needs to be an "issue" please let me know. > > kc > [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov > [2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/terms > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 20:39:57 UTC