Hi Mathew,
Thank you for your patient explanations. On the list just last week
was an exchange about namespace identifiers, and it was claimed
there is no semantic definition for such; well, 15926's
LeftNamespace and RightNamespace proves that assertion wrong I
guess.
As for reuse, my understanding about First Order Logic is that all
properties are requred to be predicators; 15926's are not -- instead
they are all camelcased phrases, predicatorNouns, as is the common
practice elsewhere. It is one's use of those nouns in object
properties in my opinion that eliminates reuse of very substantial
bodies of work like 15926. But as you say 15926 had no design
intention for reuse, that to the extent it occurs is pure
serendipity.
But if 15926 were constrained to use predicators for all relations,
I'd expect its reuse to be less random. In fact it would then
conform to the rule that FOL predicates are predicators not nouns. I
mean all predicators, no nouns. Said differently, here's the rule:
no nouns, only predicators.
Why is this good valid rule with many beneficial consequences
violated, even by RDFS? So often the 'noun' in the object property
is exactly the Class referenced by the rdfs:range for the object
property -- 15926 does that rather consistently. Hmm, let's go
further and name properties per their domain too!
"domainPredicatorRange" -- just what we did in the bad old days of C
data structures, prefixing members with the name of the structure,
sometimes with the predicator "is" and sometimes with "has" all
separated with underscores.
But we're semanticists now, so let's not be caught with properties
like "approval", much better to say "hasApproval" -- at least we're
not saying "designApproval" or "designHasApproval" or several
others. It's got the predicator in there, so what's the damn
problem?
Oops, here's the problem:
Forgetting the rules = Having no rules = No reuse.
Thanks/jmc
|