Re: has, is, of

"we should always keep both the coder's and the conceptual modeler's
position in mind."
+1 for that


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de> wrote:

> My two cents:
>
> When we integrated GoodRelations, we changed all (most) property names
> from hasXYZ to xyz in order to match the schema.org naming pattern of
> trying to omit has-, is- and other prefixed and suffixes as much as
> possible (hasPOS is the exception from the rule).. In the original gr
> namespace, so far the old names are the official ones.
>
> Back then, I liked this direction, because it saves a lot of typing and
> one CamelCase (and thus potential source of error) for each usage of the
> property, so I think the ergonomics of the schema.org approach is
> superior. In GoodRelations, I originally tried to use very precise names
> for properties and classes (which lead to unhandy elements like
> gr:LocationOfSalesOrService provisioning - which is conceptually a maybe
> more precise than the new gr:Location or schema:Place - but it really hurts
> the coder).
>
> After having created ca. 300 examples in RDFa and Microdata in the old
> GoodRelations and the new schema.org namespace, I can tell that the risk
> of ambiguity is by far smaller than the gain in coding efficiency and
> number of errors, assumed that you can easily look up the definition of the
> element.
>
> Let's keep in mind that schema.org is a relatively small vocabulary that
> will be used by millions of coders on billions of documents, so we should
> always keep both the coder's and the conceptual modeler's position in mind.
>
> Martin
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2014, at 21:11, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:27:36AM -0700, Karen Coyle 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]
> >
> > Dan previously stated in reply to another property naming policy
> > question of yours, around case-sensitivity being the only distinguisher
> > between a property and a name (for example, "review" and "Review"):
> >
> > """
> > The schema.org team haven't yet decided on what to do, but a possibility
> > is to introduce new hasXyz property names, and mark the original form as
> > deprecated in favour of the has-based version.
> > """
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2013Dec/0037.html
> >
> > We took this statement of direction into consideration when we proposed
> > "hasPart" as part of the Periodical proposal. Formal guidance for future
> > proposals would be welcome, of course, should the schema.org team come
> > to such a decision!
> >
> > In an effort to reduce the number of worms in the can for the other
> > property name forms, the reality check for the current usage of "fooOf"
> > properties in schema.org is as follows:
> >
> > branchOf
> > causeOf
> > comprisedOf
> > estimatesRiskOf
> > increasesRiskOf
> > isPartOf
> > isVariantOf
> > memberOf
> > predecessorOf
> > successorOf
> >
> > And the currently used "isFoo" properties are:
> >
> > isAvailableGenerically
> > isBasedOnUrl
> > isConsumableFor
> > isFamilyFriendly
> > isGift
> > isPartOf
> > isProprietary
> > isRelatedTo
> > isSimilarTo
> > isVariantOf
> >
> > (In passing and off topic and mostly for danbri, I note that "issuedBy"
> > appears twice in schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html with different
> > domainIncludes directives and descriptions, which is weird; some have
> > "<span>Domain" and others have "<span>domain").
> >
>
>
>