Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type)

If so... 'category' maybe the closest to what we mean...

Ivan

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> I think there are only 3 reasons why I think 'instanceof' is a bad choice:
> 
> 1. Multiword, which I already spoke of.
> 2. instance has another meaning in some existing and future XHTML
> documents.
> 3. It comes over as rdf-speak. Up to now we have done our best to avoid
> exposing RDF terminology to the XHTML author; no subject, predicate,
> object and so on, just existing HTML concepts where possible.
> Unfortuantely, most of the synonyms have already been taken (class,
> type, role), but I still think we should try and find something that
> reads better than 'instanceof' or 'isa'.
> 
> /me runs a thesaurus
> 
> sort
> kind
> category
> realm
> 
> depict
> portray
> represent
> embody
> 
> like
> 
> Steven
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:25:48 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In today's telecon, we proposed and resolved to use a *new* attribute,
>> rather than @class or @role, for the rdf:type syntactic sugar. Thus,
>> @class and @role do not currently result in any triples being generated,
>> although one may consider that they will in a future version.
>>
>> The question, then, is which attribute to use. Steven expressed
>> reservations about two-word attributes like "isa" or "instanceof", and
>> instead proposed: denotes, depicts, represents, category, ilk, kind.
>>
>> Other thoughts?
>>
>> I'm partial to "instanceof" and "kind", and I have no additional
>> suggestions.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf