- From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 17:54:15 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@makxdekkers I am not sure about what is realistic and what is not. My comment in today's call was more a reaction to an emerging proposals to have distinct size properties for every possible unit of measures, which sound to me as bad modelling, and dangerous in a longer-term perspective. If the rationale behind this discussion is to make users more comfortable in expressing and reading the size, we have to consider that the name for multiples of bytes will evolve and which scale to use might be application dependent: if we add the property TerabyteSize, sooner or later we might need to add exabyteSize ... etc. I am not against the use of blank node in this specific case n-ary relation if there is such a dire need of expressing the size in different unit of measures. However, I tend to agree with you, If we do not want to have blank nodes, and no other solutions than adding new properties with hard-coded scale/size are on the table, we should replicate the simple approach from VOID which probably corresponds to live with bytesize. -- GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/313#issuecomment-417410177 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2018 17:54:17 UTC