- From: Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:46:53 +0200
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFQgrbYn_HSB3mKcWNStYDzmfa6LRiw8HVoymyors4YhgXmEEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for this post Karen, I am wondering the exact same things. I would love to know "if there is anything coherent to say about these property name choices" as well. but please in a more explicative way than: "This can be read either o is the value of p for s or (left to right) s has a property p with a value o or even the p of s is o" Because that makes my brain hurt real bad. On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > I hope this isn't another can of worms, but I would like a reality check > on the use of "has, is, of" in property names. DanBri made a terse > statement in a recent email [1] > > "This can be read either > o is the value of p for s > or (left to right) > s has a property p with a value o > or even > the p of s is o" > > and > > "In general this works well for most RDF vocabularies, except when the > property name uses 'of'; i.e. people seem to act as if 'x foo y' is > shorthand for 'x hasFoo y'." > > I'm not sure how to interpret this. I do note that "has, is, of" do not > appear to be used often in schema.org names [2], and I wonder if that is > indeed a chosen "best practice" for schema. > > I come across this in a lot of different discussions and places -- some > vocabularies are entirely expressed as "hasX" and "isYof", and others > eschew this form entirely. Formally, the name should not change the > semantics of the property, and it is legitimate to name your property > "asdfieh" if you wish. However, within a single vocabulary, I can imagine > wishing to stick with one form for the sake of clarity. Beyond that, I > don't know if there is anything coherent to say about these property name > choices. > > Thoughts? > > > kc > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Apr/0224.html > [2] exceptions appear to be in the Product area: > isAccessoryOrSparePartFor, isConsumableFor, isRelatedTo, isSimilarTo > isVariantOf, predecessorOf, successorOf > > and the current Periodical proposal: > isPartOf, hasPart > e.g.: http://sdo-culture-bundle.appspot.com/PublicationIssue > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > >
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2014 18:47:20 UTC