Re: Eurocentrism, incorrect unit abbreviations, and proprietary Royalist Engish (sic) terms

I agree with you, I wrote that at 3 am and it's sloppy explanation and
wrong and I'm sorry, the structure is still valid though. If you follow the
dictionary definition of "rentable" then the mountain is a rentable
mountain if it's presently true that it is "available or suitable for
renting", "suitable" being the key word that shows an offer isn't required,
don't even need to go to the OWA for an explanation, it's part of the
definition of rentable.

My point was meant to be that with the Campsite/RentableCampsite structure
even uncommon scenarios where entire campsites are available as a whole for
rent can be handled, in that case the campsite could be more narrowly
classified as a RentableCampsite in just the same manner as the numbered
sites that are part of it.

Anthony


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:25 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 08:00, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the Web of Data is using the Open-World Assumption, the fact that
>> you do not have a triple at hand that refers to a mountain as included in
>> an offer does not imply that it is not rentable etc.
>>
>
> and yet it is so convenient to read meaning into missing data, e.g.
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1365#issuecomment-405212998
>
>
>> It really makes no sense to attach commercial properties to things, they
>> are much better attached to offers that refer to things. That is, in a
>> nutshell, the essence of the GoodRelations conceptual model: That products
>> and offers are best represented as two distinct entities. I am sure this
>> idea had been around before GoodRelations.
>>
>
> Perhaps a variation on  "All problems in computer science can be solved
> by another level of indirection" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>> Best wishes
>> Martin Hepp
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
>> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 13 Jul 2018, at 12:06, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Martin's point, because there isn't temporal logic everything should
>> be assumed present tense. So "rentable" implies "presently rentable" not
>> "potentially rentable in the future". So even though it's theoretically
>> possible to rent out a mountain it's not a rentable mountain in my view
>> until the offer exists.
>> >
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:34 AM Hans Polak <info@polak.es> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 13/07/18 01:25, Joe Duarte wrote:
>> >> We could easily write a spec mapping the human syntax to
>> machine-readable codes.
>> >
>> > Last time I checked, "easily" was not the case. I believe that human
>> syntax is quite complicated to map... but I am not a linguist.
>> >
>> > If we are "divided" on how to use a word, how are we going to be
>> "united" on grammar?
>> >
>> > My €0,02
>> >
>> > ~ Hans
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>