- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:12:46 +0000
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
> What do you think? Ruben, would that work for you? No not really, sorry… >> However, I just re-evauated this and meanwhile think that Ruben had a >> rather technical view on this which only SemWeb experts might have. >> Ruben points out that one might get the impression that a >> `hydra:supportedProperty` is an `rdf:Property` >> but in fact it is only a pointer to such a thing (if I understood >> correctly). But hat's not my main objection. You're right that not everybody thinks of rdf:Property if they don't know about it. However… > So you have > > Some Class --- supportedProperty --> SupportedProperty > |— property --> Real property The problem remains even without thinking of rdf:Property. I rephrase, given the above… A class can have a supportedProperty that is a SupportedProperty but not a Real property, but it has a property property that points to the Real property. So same issue arises, for non-SemWeb'ers, without rdf:Property. > Unfortunately, I can't think of a better term either. You really need something different. I even think that Some Class — supportedProperty --> hydra:Property |— hydra:attribute —> Real property would be better. (i.e., keep calling a "supported property" a "property", and the "Real property" an attribute, which is the opposite of what I said earlier.) We need distinct names for both things; they are different things. > So perhaps a middle ground would be to keep *s*upportedProperty but rename *S*upportedProperty to something like "PropertyDescription"!? Mmm I don't fully like PropertyDescription either, because "Description" can make it confusing on what level we are. For instance, the following is the description of a property: foaf:knows a rdf:Property; a owl:SymmetricProprerty. It is, however, not a PropertyDescription. > That would perhaps make it clearer that it is kind of a wrapper around a real property. I really suggest find distinct terms for both concepts. Being able to name something is crucial to have clarity. I doesn't have to be "attribute"; anything that is distinct from "property" (i.e., does not have "property" in its name) is fine with me. Best, Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 21:13:21 UTC