- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:58:15 +0100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Makx Dekkers <makx@makxdekkers.com>, 'Bill Roberts' <bill@swirrl.com>, public-gld-comments@w3.org
Raphaël, On 5 Apr 2013, at 17:13, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote: > 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. Multiple popular vocabularies that use this practice have been listed in the thread. > 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. That's a convention coming from Description Logics that I haven't seen in any other modelling school. Can you show me something that uses this and is *not* an OWL ontology? I'm with TimBL on this one: [[ On the other hand, also one should not encourage people having to declare both a property and its inverse, which would simply double the number of definitions out there, and give one more axis of arbitrary variation in the way information is expressed. ]] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/72 Best, Richard
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 16:58:43 UTC