- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:01:28 +0000
- To: Jindřich Mynarz <mynarzjindrich@gmail.com>
- CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On this occasion I really am trying to avoid getting into the debate about whether it is right or not to use an object property with a label that is the same as the class that is its range, differentiated only by the case of the first letter. That is an issue, and we prob should clear it up, but not today (and I suspect there is a lot of agreement on this). I'm just asking, do you agree or not that foo -> Foo *implies* 'has foo' -> Foo sufficiently strongly that a translation of the label into a language that does not have upper and lower case letters can indeed be 'has foo?' Phil. On 11/02/2014 10:46, Jindřich Mynarz wrote: > OK, I thought I must have misunderstood that. (However, you can argue that > you can provide owl:equivalentProperty links between the translated URIs.) > > If translating rdfs:labels is indeed the case, then why not have 2 > vocabulary terms with the same label? Is it because it confuses vocabulary > users and worsens usability of the vocabulary in question? What other > concerns do you have on mind? > > - Jindřich > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:01:42 UTC