- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:48:48 -0400
- 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