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

Re: has, is, of

From: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:03:28 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHQ1n3DSctmddr8O8455YVS3CTCB2WZJjJY7Mbjy3bj_a37N-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hello,

There has been discussions on whether property names should be nouns
or verbs. You might find JeniT's article [1] and RoleNoun entry at W3C
Wiki [2] interesting, for example.

BTW, noun property names work better at least in Japanese, e.g.

  :book :著者 :dan .      # 著者 = author

seems OK, while verb form would be tricky: has-author style (:著者を持つ)
sounds strange partly because Japanese sentense has SOV structure
rather than SVO. Instead,

  :book :の著者は :dan .  # ≒ whose author is

makes sense, though almost not acceptable as a property name.

cheers,

[1] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/128
[2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/RoleNoun

2014-04-21 7:12 GMT+09:00 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>:
>
>
> 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
>



-- 
@prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name
"KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 11:03:58 UTC

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