- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:24:48 -0700
- To: "Martin Hepp (Google Docs)" <mfhepp@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>, Hans Polak <info@polak.es>, "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK-qy=4PGQFhLniGPrvkY8NP=ON-8qQsqXBYrTSmnTKbU=M66g@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 08:00, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote: > Since the Web of Data is using the Open-World Assumption, the fact that > you do not have a triple at hand that refers to a mountain as included in > an offer does not imply that it is not rentable etc. > and yet it is so convenient to read meaning into missing data, e.g. https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1365#issuecomment-405212998 > It really makes no sense to attach commercial properties to things, they > are much better attached to offers that refer to things. That is, in a > nutshell, the essence of the GoodRelations conceptual model: That products > and offers are best represented as two distinct entities. I am sure this > idea had been around before GoodRelations. > Perhaps a variation on "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection Dan > Best wishes > Martin Hepp > > ----------------------------------- > martin hepp http://www.heppnetz.de > mhepp@computer.org @mfhepp > > > > > > On 13 Jul 2018, at 12:06, Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Martin's point, because there isn't temporal logic everything should > be assumed present tense. So "rentable" implies "presently rentable" not > "potentially rentable in the future". So even though it's theoretically > possible to rent out a mountain it's not a rentable mountain in my view > until the offer exists. > > > > Anthony > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:34 AM Hans Polak <info@polak.es> wrote: > > > > On 13/07/18 01:25, Joe Duarte wrote: > >> We could easily write a spec mapping the human syntax to > machine-readable codes. > > > > Last time I checked, "easily" was not the case. I believe that human > syntax is quite complicated to map... but I am not a linguist. > > > > If we are "divided" on how to use a word, how are we going to be > "united" on grammar? > > > > My €0,02 > > > > ~ Hans > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 16 July 2018 15:25:24 UTC