W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: [rdfweb-dev] Relationship property names

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:26:34 -0500
Message-Id: <614905A2-7684-11D8-89AB-000A9580D8C0@w3.org>
Cc: Sw-Team@W3.Org W3.Org <sw-team@w3.org>, Public W3C <www-archive@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>

Dan,

My understanding was that there is fairly wide acceptance in the RDF
community from early on that role nouns are preferred..

Yes, it conflicted with my notion of "predicate" but I have grown to
appreciate it. I didn't realise the extent to which english if full
of these things and the richness of them. Often, for example,
there are nouns (cousin, mentor, arctan, etc etc) when no verb exists -
hence the growth of "isXXXof" or "hasXXX" forms when one
attempts to make verbs.

There was some early email about it.  I bet you can dig up more
stuff.  Yes it seems like work for the BPWG to put in a document.

I thought I had written it somewhere too but I can't find it.

Feel free to pass this on.

Tim


On Mar 12, 2004, at 16:10, Dan Brickley wrote:

>
> Fwd from the foaf list.
>
> Sounds like a job for the BPD WG? ;)
>
> dan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org> -----
>
> From: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:42:05 +0000
> To: rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org
> Subject: [rdfweb-dev] Relationship property names
> Message-ID: <992273284.20040312194205@internetalchemy.org>
> Reply-To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
>
> Danbri suggested that the property names in the relationship should
> lose the Of prefix. I had a go at renaming the properties in light of
> this to see how hard it would be. The result is a change from verb to
> noun which seems at odds with the notion of predicate.
>
> Here's my list, noting that the meaning of non-symmetric properties 
> reverse if
> you drop the Of, I've rearranged the right hand side to preserve
> meanings.
>
>
> friendOf          ---->  friend
> acquaintanceOf    ---->  acquaintance
> parentOf          ---->  child
> siblingOf         ---->  sibling
> childOf           ---->  parent
> grandchildOf      ---->  grandParent
> spouseOf          ---->  spouse
> enemyOf           ---->  enemy
> antagonistOf      ---->  antagonist
> ambivalentOf      ---->  ??
> lostContactWith
> knowsOf           ---->  knowsOf
> wouldLikeToKnow
> knowsInPassing
> knowsByReputation
> closeFriendOf     ---->  closeFriend
> hasMet
> worksWith
> colleagueOf       ---->  colleague
> collaboratesWith  ---->  collaborator
> employerOf        ---->  employee
> employedBy        ---->  employer
> mentorOf          ---->  apprentice
> apprenticeTo      ---->  mentor
> livesWith
> neighborOf        ---->  neighbor
> grandparentOf     ---->  grandChild
> lifePartnerOf     ---->  lifePartner
> engagedTo
> ancestorOf        ---->  desdendant
> descendantOf      ---->  ancestor
>
>
> What are other people's thoughts here? The original naming is probably
> consistent with foaf:knows, i.e. you can say A foaf:knows B and A
> rel:spouseOf B. The revised properties would require you to say A has
> rel:spouse B. (Changing foaf:knows to its noun form would result in A
> has foaf:knowledge of B which has an entirely different meaning :)
>
>
>
> Ian
>
> -- 
> http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand
> Working on... myRSS <http://myrss.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rdfweb-dev mailing list
> rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org
> wiki: http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject
> http://rdfweb.org/mailman/listinfo/rdfweb-dev
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 08:26:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC