W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: has, is, of

From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:46:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFQgrbYn_HSB3mKcWNStYDzmfa6LRiw8HVoymyors4YhgXmEEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Thanks for this post Karen, I am wondering the exact same things. I would
love to know "if there is anything coherent to say about these property
name choices" as well.

but please in a more explicative way than:

"This can be read either
o is the value of p for s
or (left to right)
s has a property p with a value o
or even
the p of s is o"

Because that makes my brain hurt real bad.


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> I hope this isn't another can of worms, but I would like a reality check
> on the use of "has, is, of" in property names. DanBri made a terse
> statement in a recent email [1]
>
> "This can be read either
> o is the value of p for s
> or (left to right)
> s has a property p with a value o
> or even
> the p of s is o"
>
> and
>
> "In general this works well for most RDF vocabularies, except when the
> property name uses 'of'; i.e. people seem to act as if 'x foo y' is
> shorthand for 'x hasFoo y'."
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret this. I do note that "has, is, of" do not
> appear to be used often in schema.org names [2], and I wonder if that is
> indeed a chosen "best practice" for schema.
>
> I come across this in a lot of different discussions and places -- some
> vocabularies are entirely expressed as "hasX" and "isYof", and others
> eschew this form entirely. Formally, the name should not change the
> semantics of the property, and it is legitimate to name your property
> "asdfieh" if you wish. However, within a single vocabulary, I can imagine
> wishing to stick with one form for the sake of clarity. Beyond that, I
> don't know if there is anything coherent to say about these property name
> choices.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> kc
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Apr/0224.html
> [2] exceptions appear to be in the Product area:
> isAccessoryOrSparePartFor, isConsumableFor, isRelatedTo, isSimilarTo
> isVariantOf, predecessorOf, successorOf
>
> and the current Periodical proposal:
> isPartOf, hasPart
> e.g.: http://sdo-culture-bundle.appspot.com/PublicationIssue
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2014 18:47:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC