Re: Eurocentrism, incorrect unit abbreviations, and proprietary Royalist Engish (sic) terms

Saying something is *suitable* for renting is just as valid as saying
something is suitable for anything else, e.g.:

Venue

    MusicVenue

ParkingSpace

    RentableParkingSpace

Campsite

    RentableCampsite


Anthony


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:41 AM Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with you, I wrote that at 3 am and it's sloppy explanation and
> wrong and I'm sorry, the structure is still valid though. If you follow the
> dictionary definition of "rentable" then the mountain is a rentable
> mountain if it's presently true that it is "available or suitable for
> renting", "suitable" being the key word that shows an offer isn't required,
> don't even need to go to the OWA for an explanation, it's part of the
> definition of rentable.
>
> My point was meant to be that with the Campsite/RentableCampsite structure
> even uncommon scenarios where entire campsites are available as a whole for
> rent can be handled, in that case the campsite could be more narrowly
> classified as a RentableCampsite in just the same manner as the numbered
> sites that are part of it.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:25 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>