- From: Dickinson, Ian John (HP Labs, Bristol, UK) <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:18:59 -0000
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Hi Dan, > FWIW this style is most consistent with that advocated in the > RDF specs, which originally made this explicit by noting that > we read "[subject] has a [property name] value which is > [object]". eg. > [restaurants] has a [narrower] value which is [vegetarian restaurants] > [snip] > As an aside, I think > rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf would much better have > been named rdfs:superProperty, and rdfs:superClass but it's > too late for that now. yes, this gets to the heart of it. The intended reading you suggest above would indeed make it wrong to have a preposition or verb in the predicate name. skos:narrower seems the more ambiguous when subClassOf, subPropertyOf have become the established norm. :genie :out :bottle, as it were :-) Ian
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 13:19:33 UTC