- From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:40:32 +1000
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 3 May 2013, at 18:21, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > 2. The relationship between "Relation" and "Direct" properties needs further explanation. Do you intend that there be an entailment relationship? For example, should the Relation form: > > :me vcard:hasFormattedName [ > a vcard:FormattedName; > vcard:formattedName "Dave"; > ] . > entail the direct form: > :me vcard:formattedName "Dave" . > > I think it should, in which case you need to express this (e.g. using owl property chain axioms or closure rules). If you don't want such entailments to hold then you need to state that and explain when authors should use relational form instead of direct form and how clients are supposed to handle the differences between the two forms. The reason for the relational form was to support vCard's "property parameters". That is, we can add dp:language and dp:sortAs as additional properties of the FormatedName. We can add more description for this purpose. > 3. The domain/ranges of the Relation and Direct properties are confusing, if not actually inconsistent. As I understand it you want to be able to use the Direct properties like vcard:formattedName on the entity or on the n-ary relation (as in the above example). > Suggest that you either have different properties for the Direct relationship and the component of the n-ary relationship, or you leave the domains of these two-mode properties as open. Ok, great point. Will make the change. > 4. The notation used in the tables in section 2 is confusing. You are using dp: op: and class: as if they were (undefined) namespace prefixes. Whereas it appears they are all the same namespace and the prefixes are used to indicate type. Recommend just using a single prefix and not bother with the type distinction in those tables. OK, agree > 5. The text in the vocabulary reference is a little confusing in its use of labels instead of localnames to refer to the terms. This confusion might be reduced if the labelling were more consistent. For example, it took me a while to realize that the label "has format name" refers to vcard:formattedName whereas "has formatted name" refers to vcard:hasFormattedName. Suggest that use of things like "has" should be consistent between the label and the localname. Similarly the use of abbreviations in the labels is inconsistent (e.g. "Org" for "vcard:Organization"). Ok, agree. > 6. It would be helpful to have a section discussing the relationship between this and existing vocabularies such as foaf and ORG. Good Idea...(BTW, as ORG is new, It would be good to see their reaction to using more of vCard, now that vCard has an cleaner Organisation semantic) Thanks for your comments Dave... Cheers... Renato Iannella Semantic Identity http://semanticidentity.com Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 04:40:51 UTC