Re: On using qualified names for properties

Sorry I'm coming in with another question:

Do you consider that http://schema.org/Thing/name and 
http://schema.org/CreativeWork/name

as two distinct properties?

-Adrian

On 5/10/2012 11:29 AM, Егор Антонов wrote:
> Does it actually means, that there is no conflicting property names in 
> different types yet?
> Shouldn't we use http://schema.org/ + class name + property name to 
> make properties URIs really U?
> 10.05.2012, 12:31, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>:
>>
>> On 10 May 2012 09:36, Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de 
>> <mailto:giurca@tu-cottbus.de>> wrote:
>>
>>      Dear Dan,
>>      Is it any ongoing discussion  with respect of defining URIs for
>>     property
>>      names? Actually Schema.org defines some property names the same
>>     as some
>>      class names (such as aggregateRating vs AggregateRating). I
>>     would say that
>>      URIs and/or qualified names may not necessarily be directly used
>>     by the
>>      webmasters but they are useful to be defined.  Of course a web
>>     server may
>>      consider case sensitive URLs but maybe an agreement  on defining
>>     URIs is
>>      much useful.
>>
>> If you need a URI for a schema.org property, compose it using
>> 'http://schema.org/' <http://schema.org/%27> + 'aggregateRating'.
>>
>> It is not ideal that we have some cases where a class and property
>> name differ only in capitalization, and we should avoid that in
>> future. We do stick to the rule that an initial upper case is a type,
>> and an initial lowercase means a property, and both Microdata and RDFa
>> Lite have different notations for classes and properties, so this is
>> not technically ambiguous. But it can be confusing, I agree.
>>
>> At some point it is reasonable to expect us to publish per-property
>> pages on schema.org too.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>>
> -- 
> Егор Антонов
> http://staff.yandex-team.ru/elderos