Re: Use of "has" or "is" in DPV's properties

Hi Pat, All.
IMO we can take this discussion as a concrete proposal based on Pat's 
(well articulated) argument to have consistency in naming by removing 
property name prefixes i.e. hasDataSubject becomes dataSubject.

However, we're not necessarily a group of semantic-web experts in terms 
of focus. Perhaps it would be better to have this discussion (also) on 
the semantic web mailing list and report consensus or salient points 
back here - if any? This way, we can take advantage of a wider community 
who have authored specifications using both styles and have surely at 
some point already discussed this.

@Pat - would you be willing to do this? (IMHO you can edit and forward 
your existing email - it makes a good argument)

(note: this does not exclude people discussing this here)


My personal opinion:
I like the consistency aspect of naming. I don't like drastic big 
changes, but if there is a strong argument that this improves DPV before 
it gets to v1 later this year, then I'm for it.

My only concern against non-prefixed naming is the labelling in 
languages that don't have prefixes or capital letters (as Rob mentioned 
earlier). In these cases, one would have to 'create' the label to 
distinguish between a label for Class and a Property with the same name 
i.e. class would be 'Concept' and property would have to be 'has 
Concept'. To me this is fine - the IRIs would be in English, the labels 
can be structured any which way for aesthetic, accuracy, or correctness 
- they don't have to be equivalent to IRIs. However, should there be 
consistency between multi-lingual labels - I don't know.

I checked DCAT v2 (standard) and v3 (proposed) - they have non-prefixed 
IRIs and multi-lingual labels - and they either have (i) exact same 
label for classes and concepts; or (ii) do not have the same language 
labels across classes and properties. See

Given that DCAT is quite well known and actively discussed/developed, I 
think its a good indication of my concern not being important enough. 
But I wouldn't consider myself as enough of a semantic-web expert to 
make decisions on this alone.


P.S. I remembered that this prefix-based notations are present partly 
because DPV started with the concepts/properties from SPECIAL 
vocabularies You can 
see the properties there are of the form `hasPurpose` and `hasStorage`.

On 28/03/2022 15:13, Pat McBennett wrote:

Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Ph.D
Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Received on Monday, 28 March 2022 20:30:55 UTC