- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:21:28 +0100
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Mark, Jodi (and sorry for the delay answering the first mail Jodi has sent on the subject...) I'm ok with your changes! It's much better like that. Thanks, Antoine > 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 21:20:56 UTC