Re: Define/change the range of "supportedProperties" (ISSUE-37)

> What do you think? Ruben, would that work for you?

No not really, sorry…

>> However, I just re-evauated this and meanwhile think that Ruben had a
>> rather technical view on this which only SemWeb experts might have.
>> Ruben points out that one might get the impression that a
>> `hydra:supportedProperty` is an `rdf:Property`
>> but in fact it is only a pointer to such a thing (if I understood
>> correctly).

But hat's not my main objection.

You're right that not everybody thinks of rdf:Property if they don't know about it.
However…

> So you have
> 
>  Some Class --- supportedProperty --> SupportedProperty
>                                         |— property --> Real property

The problem remains even without thinking of rdf:Property.
I rephrase, given the above…

A class can have a supportedProperty that is a SupportedProperty
but not a Real property, but it has a property property that points to the Real property.

So same issue arises, for non-SemWeb'ers, without rdf:Property.

> Unfortunately, I can't think of a better term either.

You really need something different. I even think that

 Some Class — supportedProperty --> hydra:Property
                                        |— hydra:attribute —> Real property

would be better.
(i.e., keep calling a "supported property" a "property", and the "Real property" an attribute,
 which is the opposite of what I said earlier.)

We need distinct names for both things; they are different things.

> So perhaps a middle ground would be to keep *s*upportedProperty but rename *S*upportedProperty to something like "PropertyDescription"!?

Mmm I don't fully like PropertyDescription either, because "Description" can make it confusing on what level we are.
For instance, the following is the description of a property:

foaf:knows a rdf:Property;
    a owl:SymmetricProprerty.

It is, however, not a PropertyDescription.

> That would perhaps make it clearer that it is kind of a wrapper around a real property.

I really suggest find distinct terms for both concepts.
Being able to name something is crucial to have clarity.
I doesn't have to be "attribute"; anything that is distinct from "property"
(i.e., does not have "property" in its name) is fine with me.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 21:13:21 UTC