- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:12:21 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Thanks for clarifying. I certainly understand that not all inverses are needed, and that they should only be introduced and named where there is a requirement. However, that is really just a special case of noting that not all potential relationships should be blessed by being given their own name in a vocabulary: whether you call it ontology engineering, information modeling or data modeling, the art is in selecting _which_ edges from the very large set of candidates in a graph we think are important. We do this for efficiency, not because there is no other path to travel that joins the same two resources. Sometimes that will include inverses. But I do not accept a blanket rule to prohibit them - people will encounter different artefacts from different access routes, and it is best if they can see all the relationships that matter (!) without running an additional query. In this case, there is a whole lot of descriptive information that is more appropriately attached to the Dataset description than the Distribution. I'd prefer to just navigate over to it than have to reason my way over. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/120#issuecomment-373282562 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2018 07:12:31 UTC