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

Re: has, is, of

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 02:00:56 +0200
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B3FF5A10-4777-439F-B60F-03C853C6ABF8@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
As far as I remember, I am responsible for

>> 
>> isVariantOf
>> predecessorOf
>> successorOf
>> 
>> And the currently used "isFoo" properties are:
>> 
>> isConsumableFor
>> isRelatedTo
>> isSimilarTo
>> isVariantOf

;-)

The rationale for keeping "is" and/or "of" in those GoodRelations properties was that I thought (and others seemed to agree) that this reduces wrong usage, since

    GolfIII predecessorOf GolfIV 
 
leaves less room for messing up the direction, as compared to

    GolfIII predecessor GolfIV 

In the latter case, one may falsely assume the meaning of the property was "has predecessor".

For all of those, the direction IS important, except for isRelatedTo and isSimilarTo, since they are most likely symmetric properties.

In general, we tried to remove all is/has/of from GoodRelations properties when adding them to schema.org, except for when we thought this would we counterproductive. 

That may not say anything about the future of naming in schema.org, of course, but we thought about each single property name.

As for the problem of differences in prepositions in variants of English, I suggest to be tolerant; we will be unable to find names that are both catchy and grammatically correct in any branches of the respective language. For me, the litmus test is the ability of developers at Web scale to grasp the intended meaning and to apply the conceptual element properly.



Best wishes 

Martin



On 21 Apr 2014, at 00:12, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/20/14, 12:11 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> 
>> 
>> branchOf
>> causeOf
>> comprisedOf
>> estimatesRiskOf
>> increasesRiskOf
>> isPartOf
>> isVariantOf
>> memberOf
>> predecessorOf
>> successorOf
>> 
>> And the currently used "isFoo" properties are:
>> 
>> isAvailableGenerically
>> isBasedOnUrl
>> isConsumableFor
>> isFamilyFriendly
>> isGift
>> isPartOf
>> isProprietary
>> isRelatedTo
>> isSimilarTo
>> isVariantOf
>> 
> 
> I always get worried about language misunderstandings whenever prepositions are involved. I don't know how all this reads to non-native speakers of either British or American English, but I do know that even between those two the prepositions can vary: "Have a chat to" vs. "Have a chat with" is pretty innocent vis-a-vis schema.org, but the American "agree to something" is simply "agree something" in British English, so a property "agreeTo" would be strange to a British speaker. And I don't see what would be ambiguous about:
>  X -> related -> Y
> especially when read following the W3C document's model:
> 
> Y is the value of -> related -> for X
> X has property -> related -> with a value Y
> 
> although:
> the related -> of X is -> Y
> 
> is awkward, whereas
> the title -> of X is Y
> 
> is not. I agree with Thad's "KISS" - keeping it simple.
> 
> kc
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 00:01:29 UTC

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