- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:19:55 -0000
- To: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: <neil.jacobs@bristol.ac.uk>, <g.conole@bristol.ac.uk>
> <_:1> <foaf:research_interest> <_:2>
> <_:2> <rdf:type> <foaf:Research_interest>
Oh, heh: I get it now. This is a bit concerning, in that people like
to name their ranges after the property name. :person and :Person,
:name and :Name. We had quite a discussion about this on SWAG a while
ago, when we were disucssing using nouns for properties.
It'd be cool to define a sub property of range that is unambiguous:-
:unamRange a daml:UnambiguousProperty;
rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range .
then you could do stuff like:-
_:a [ :unamRange foaf:Research_interest ] _:b .
but then you'd end up with throwaway classes.
I conclude that it doesn't actually matter to have classes named after
properties or vice versa, as long as everything is properly stated.
For example, there is a property in EARL ("testSubject") that is named
after its *domain* rather than its range. No one seems to have had a
problem with that as of yet :-)
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 12:20:57 UTC