Hi, (01)
just some clarifications below: (02)
>> Accordingly, it could have been rdfs:subdivisionOf -- that would
>> certainly be clearer to the average Joe, and it would have been
>> reusuable in other *contexts* -- the operative principle of *reuse*. (03)
The term class and subClass are widely used and recognized. I am having
trouble to understand how somebody would be confused by property and
subProperty. Why would you feel that division and subDivision would be
less confusing? To the contrary they would occlude what is meant. (04)
>> But instead, we get two oracular properties, one a completely *made-up*
>> word (subProperty), rather than community consensus about a more
>> abstract concept. (05)
Just to avoid confusion. RDF and the decisions taken (e.g., on property
names) were part of a long standardization process at the W3C and the
(working) group(s) and email list(s) still exist. You are most welcome
to voice your concerns there and make proposals. As with all other
cases, this is a moving target and needs improvement based on usage
reports. Nobody claims it is perfect. (06)
Best,
Krzysztof (07)
On 01/23/2014 09:42 AM, John McClure wrote:
> I have no confusion at all. I am using syntactic structures to connote
> important semantic information.
>
> rdfs:subPropertyOf is interesting. It contains a preposition -- of --
> that we agree upon. Semantically it is a subclassing mechanism but one
> specific to properties, so there's no difference between
> rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf, with that exception of
> *context*. Properties may only be a subclass of other properties and
> Classes may only be a subclass of other classes. And really, what is a
> subclass other than a subdivision?
>
> Accordingly, it could have been rdfs:subdivisionOf -- that would
> certainly be clearer to the average Joe, and it would have been
> reusuable in other *contexts* -- the operative principle of *reuse*.
>
> But instead, we get two oracular properties, one a completely *made-up*
> word (subProperty), rather than community consensus about a more
> abstract concept.
>
> I'll address the generic nature of "is:of" later/jmc
>
>
> On 1/23/2014 9:21 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
>> I guess you are confusing namespaces with linguistic expressions.
>> "is:about" would require an is namespace. How would id possibly help
>> to rename a human understandable label such as rdfs:subPropertyOf into
>> an overly generic is:of? is of what? is of blue color? One way to
>> address your issues is to join the W3C RDF working group and
>> contribute to their work to jointly improve RDF. Best, Krzysztof On
>> 01/23/2014 08:55 AM, John McClure wrote:
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (08)
--
Krzysztof Janowicz (09)
Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 (010)
Email: jano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
|