- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:09:06 +0100
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On Friday, March 07, 2014 8:54 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >> 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.
And if we were to loosen the range requirement?
"A class can have a supportedProperty that is either a Property or a
PropertyDescription."
I'm sorry, I can't think of anything better at the moment. One of the
alternatives I've thought of (but which I don't particularly like) is to
separate properties from their "descriptions". Something like
Class supportedProperty foaf:name
propertyRestriction [ property foaf:name
required true ]
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 16:09:38 UTC