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

Re: has, is, of

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:10:59 -0700
Message-ID: <535518E3.5090507@kcoyle.net>
To: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
CC: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Great links, thanks, and also for the insight into Japanese. It looks 
like Pat Hayes has summed it up nicely in [2]:

"one can always find nice intuitive evidence for whichever convention 
you decide to like best."

It seems that my earlier suggestion -- that it may just come down to 
being consistent within a given vocabulary -- is as close as we'll get 
to agreement.

kc

On 4/21/14, 4:03 AM, KANZAKI Masahide wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 13:11:31 UTC

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