- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 19:54:02 +0000
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
>> 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. > > Fully agree.. the problem is we haven't been able to come up with something > better yet.. something everyone can live with. Our options are limited. We will have to disappoint somebody in the end. My dictionary gives the following options: > property, quality, attribute, characteristic, feature, power, trait, mark, hallmark. so I'm afraid it will have to be one of those if we want to avoid that > 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. I've stated my preference before so I won't unnecessarily repeat myself. While "attribute" might not be the best word _absolutely_ speaking, I still think it is the optimum under the constraints we have: "property" is already taken so we cannot use it without adding confusion. Best, Ruben
Received on Friday, 7 March 2014 19:54:37 UTC