- From: Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:28:13 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi, Am 15.02.2015 um 15:10 schrieb Andrew Hacking: > Tomasz, > > Thanks for the link to issue 82. I don't think that is going to cut it > since its just about providing an explicit list of labelled > values/"individuals" [sic] and we need a range of values to be expressed. > > btw I also dislike the term "individual" in the proposal That is valuable feedback. By individual I mean a value that is given by its URI. E.g. http://schema.org/OnSitePickup. Think of it as a uniquely named enumerated value whose meaning can be looked up by its URI. As opposed to a plain String "OnSitePickup". Since I agree with you that *using* Hydra should not require to learn OWL, what would be a better name? *Designing* Hydra is a different story - learning about RDF is a must to work on Hydra's design. What you have to keep in mind when choosing terms is that the RDF people on this list also need to recognize the concepts. E.g. it doesn't help if *they* say "ah, you mean an individual. Why don't you use the proper term then?". Once I used the term 'canonical URI' on this list, only to be asked not to use that term but rather 'identifier'. On this list two worlds come together who need to learn the ideas and concepts of each other to arrive at something that works well. Best regards, Dietrich
Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 08:28:45 UTC