- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:25:49 +0000
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:18:21 +0100 Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: > > A good RDF predicate is one that fits naturally into the following > > two phrases: > > > > "has ..." > > "is ... of" > > Actually there are a number of common predicates which don't follow > this pattern (of a property noun) but rather a verb. For instance in > Dublin Core there is 'replaces', 'requires', 'references' and > 'conformsTo'; in FOAF there is 'knows', 'depicts' and 'based_near'. FOAF has very badly named properties. It has no consistency. Witness camelCase versus underscore_seperators. It is too ingrained to change though. Most of the original Dublin Core properties were quite good; some of the newer ones less so. The role/noun pattern (or has/of antipattern) if you prefer is an established meme - not just some idea I've dreamt up. http://www.w3.org/wiki/HasPropertyOf http://www.w3.org/wiki/RoleNoun > Do you have an opinion regarding whether the object should be an IRI > or a literal? Purely from a semantic point of view, an xsd:anyURI typed literal probably best reflects reality. But from a pragmatic point of view, an IRI is probably most useful, as it allows "joins" between the document being parsed and the vocab's graph in SPARQL. I'm not especially bothered either way. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 21:25:05 UTC