Re: dataset and Dataset

Fair enough - it seems from all the responses that this is not in fact a common practice.  Maybe I just think it is because some of the ontologies I use frequently (eg data cube) use it, and I use it in ontologies I create myself.

I see the point about using more distinctly different predicates and classes and certainly wouldn't object to a change along those lines.

Thanks for the discussion!

Best regards

Bill




On 5 Apr 2013, at 17:13, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
>> I followed the idea of using a property to point to a class with the
>> capitalisation of the class name as the only difference in some recent
>> vocab work - and got push back.
> 
> I would also recommend to push back on this, and disagree with Bill, this is not an established practice (or at least, I would like to see evidence of the contrary), nor a practice to encourage.
> 
>> I was told by non-Sem Web data modellers
>> that the more general convention is that properties (data type
>> properties) should be nouns and relationships (object type properties)
>> should be verbs.
>> 
>> Things like org:hasSite cf. org:classification fit in with this.
> 
> Yes, and remember that we are talking about directed graph, and that a good practice is to give the direction of the property in its name, thus the hasXXX or the isXXXOf pattern.
> 
>> Based on that, if we were starting from scratch I'd argue for
>> dcat:hasDataset or dcat:includesDataset but it may be too late now.
> 
> Why would it be too late? This is last Call. So this is the time. After, rec, this would be too late.
> Best regards.
> 
>  Raphaël
> 
> -- 
> Raphaël Troncy
> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
> Multimedia Communications Department
> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 16:47:05 UTC