- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:12:56 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Antoine! (sorry for delay, slow connections in China) > Otherwise a small comment on naming. You make the distinction between > RELATE and ASSOCIATE, based on whether the target link between entities > exist in the data or is discovered as part of the case's scenario. To me > this also suggest the links would be of different (semantic) types. If > it is not the case, then I prefer the qualifier approach you had for the > previous list [3], where you had RELATIONS and RELATIONS-NEW (just to > make it 100% clear, it's the qualifier I like; on RELATIONS vs RELATE I > have strictly no opinion ;-)). We have decided to remove ASSOCIATE, and only have RELATE. Per your suggestion, qualifiers can be used to indicate whether it's "existing" and/or "new" relations that are represented, and the type of relation, e.g. "aggregation", so you would get e.g. RELATE (existing, aggregate). Best, Mark [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 12:13:26 UTC