- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:25:58 +0100
- To: "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:01 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>
> 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?'
Sure, I'd say as long as it doesn't suggest another meaning you can use whatever label you want. It's natural language that's purely there to describe what the property/class is about (or sometimes be directly used in user interfaces). Machines don't care. So, go ahead. If user's will know which "token" to choose when ("has role" vs. "Role" in the example below), everything is fine IMO:
Shuji "has role" Translator
Translator type "Role"
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:26:31 UTC