- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:16:32 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Makx Dekkers <makx@makxdekkers.com>, 'Bill Roberts' <bill@swirrl.com>, public-gld-comments@w3.org
Dear Richard, [I think we both want to be pragmatic and that actually we agree :-)]. > The question is whether the hasXxx/isXxxOf convention is so > universally accepted that DCAT would do wrong by not following it. DCAT will not do wrong by not following it, and this is not a principle that MUST be followed, but that MAY be followed when there might be an ambiguity for some properties. > This is clearly not the case. DC, FOAF and SKOS, and the RDF and RDFS > vocabularies themselves don't use a hasXxx/isXxxOf convention. Hum hum hum! For the record, FOAF is using a mix: e.g. foaf:primaryTopic + foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf (the later being clearer from my point of view). Furthermore, ?s foaf:img foaf:Image has also the advantage of not having the property and the class names differing only from capitalisation. Retarding SKOS, as it has been stated earlier in this thread and I hope you will not disagree with this, every single person I know had already to look at the spec to remember what is the damned direction of the skos:broader / skos:narrower properties! So perhaps the hasXXX/isXXXOf pattern would have been more suitable here! > That is fine, but please accept that there are lots of other people > who *don't* model their vocabularies this way. Sure. > It is true that in *some* cases it's very easy to get confused about > the direction of RDF properties. Exactly. My original comment was indeed general and I mainly argue that this pattern is useful in some circumstances. It is also useful for distinguishing the property/class name differing only by a capitalization but one can also adopt other methods (e.g. abbreviate the property name, see foaf:img). > I agree with Dave that in DCAT there's not much of a risk of this > confusion. The two original properties that trigger this thread are: dcat:dataset and dcat:distribution. Your argument is that because a noun is used (and because the domain and range are different), people will not be in this case confused by the property direction. I can live with this although I think dcat:hasDataset and dcat:hasDistribution will for sure remove ambiguity. Furthermore, this will enable to not have property and class names differing by only a capital letter which seem to be a problem for some of the people using DCAT according to what I read earlier. Best regards. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech Multimedia Communications Department 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2013 09:18:27 UTC