Re: property/class ambiguity in languages with no letter case

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