- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:21:00 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Hi Tom, On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 03:40:26PM -0400, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > I didn't mean to imply that Creator *should* be modeled as a class name. > It's more of a comment about naming properties more carefully to avoid > this confusion. Okay, I get it. Hmm, does that mean you would recommend that maintainers of new vocabularies _not_ follow DCMI's example in this regard (e.g., dc:creator)...? What other examples would you recommend following instead? It would be nice if someone could pull together examples of different naming styles -- e.g., creator, hasCreator, createdBy -- not just for properties but for classes, with pointers both to existing RDF vocabularies and guidelines from traditional standards bodies, taking note of practices for using singular/plural and the like. What lessons can be learned from a decade of practice naming things in RDF vocabularies...? Tom > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 06:02:59PM -0400, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > > IMO, the term "Creator" implies a class name. In contrast, "is the > > creator of" or "was created by" implies a property. I promise not to > > whine if "creator" is defined as a property, but only if its range is a > > class named "Creator". ;-) -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 20:21:39 UTC