W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2005

Re: UBL Naming Conventions & RDF

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:48:48 -0400
Message-ID: <42CED8A0.1010402@acm.org>
To: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org

John--

A couple of points of clarification:

John McClure wrote:
> Thanks all for the responses.
> 
snip
> 
> 3. Frank Manola notes that some don't use <hasX> implying he has seen <has><X>
> before.... who would they be I am wondering.

No;  saying that some people don't use hasX doesn't imply that I've seen 
the given alternative you've mentioned.  Specifically, I've seen both

ex:John ex:hasParent ex:Minerva  .

and

ex:John ex:Parent ex:Minerva  .

Other than rdf:type, *all* OWL
> property names confabulate the predicate verb with a predicate noun, consistent
> with fundamental RDF architecture, Fact=Subject+Predicate. 

No they don't.  I'm looking at the OWL language guide, Section 3.2.1. 
Some of the example properties they define include "predicate verbs" 
(hasWineDescriptor, hasColor) and some don't (madeFromGrape, course). 
Also, while RDF uses the term "predicate", I don't think that should be 
interpreted very literally as meaning quite the same thing that English 
grammar means by "predicate".  Perhaps I'm missing your point?

This architecture
> clearly results in a "RDF Naming Convention". 

Well, if it does, all I can say is that the RDF Primer misses out using it!

--Frank
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 19:36:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:03 UTC