RE: Define/change the range of "supportedProperties" (ISSUE-37)

On Monday, March 10, 2014 6:48 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> > And if we were to loosen the range requirement?
> >
> >  "A class can have a supportedProperty that is either a Property or a
> > PropertyDescription."
> 
> Then we're doomed ;-)

:-)


> Humans will be confused,

Do you think so? I'm not so sure about that..


> and so will machines, because it will be difficult to find out which is
> which.
> (I can only hope they would be distinct classes then.)

Yeah, that's true. It will become harder for machines to distinguish them.


> > 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 ]
> 
> I like the blank node here,
> but supportedProperty strongly implies that it is a property, which it
> isn't.

In this case it is. The idea was to restrict the range of supportedProperty
to rdf:Property; the range of propertyRestriction is our current
SupportedProperty.


> With "supportedProperty" => "supports" that doesn't happen,
> but "supports" might be vague.

Yeah, I considered that as well. But it is extremely vague, as you say, and
doesn't blend in with the "supportedClasses" and "supportedOperations".



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 18:44:53 UTC