- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:29:17 +0400
- To: Jindřich Mynarz <mynarzjindrich@gmail.com>, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:01:28 +0400, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> 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). (Yes. I think the answer is trivially simple) > 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?' Absolutely. And it's probably even worth putting a note on the schema to the effect that users should be careful of the similarities. (I'd recommend adding "deprecated" to the label of one URI and minting a new one, but I think that's beyond the scope restriction you keep trying to impose, of not actually *improving* the original vocabulary :) ). cheers Chaals > 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 >> > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 12:29:56 UTC