- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:02:23 +0200
- To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Then I think
dependsOnOffer
is better.
FYI: I have plans to work on extending GoodRelations in terms of product compatibility and dependencies; for that I would like to avoid "consuming" a dependsOn property keyword for now.
Martin
On 19 Sep 2014, at 16:48, Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:
> "What about "requiresAcceptanceOf"? Because the thing will not depend on an offer but on accepting that offer."
>
> +1 (makes more sense to me at least)
>
> My fear is that the term "requires" leads people to wonder who will enforce the requirement and that is ambiguous at best. How about "expectsAcceptanceOf"?
>
> Can we take up expanding the range to include Actions separately? As Martin pointed out, Actions add a lot of complexity and we should play out the use cases completely.
>
> - Vicki
>
> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
>
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 15:02:50 UTC