Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
> Chris Bizer wrote:
>
>>> So, where you say:
>>>
>>> /********************************************************/
>>> foafPersonLens rdf:type fresnel:ClassLens ;
>>> fresnel:lensDomain foaf:Person .
>>>
>>> :oldGuys rdf:type fresnel:InstanceLens ;
>>> fresnel:lensDomain
>>> "foaf:Person[foaf:age/* > 60]"^^fresnel:selector;
>>> /********************************************************/
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd rather say something like (for the reasons mentioned above):
>>>
>>> /********************************************************/
>>> foafPersonLens rdf:type fresnel:Lens ;
>>> fresnel:lensInstanceDomain foaf:Person .
>>>
>>> :oldGuys rdf:type fresnel:Lens ;
>>> fresnel:lensClassDomain
>>> "foaf:Person[foaf:age/* > 60]"^^fresnel:selector;
>>> /********************************************************/
>>>
>>> We can of course change the property names if somebody offers something
>>> better.
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good idea. Yes, I acutally think your solution of encoding the
>> information
>> into the
>> property name is better than to encode it into the class name.
>> It makes Fresnel look less complicated if there are only two basic
>> classes.
+1 to using property names to differentiate scenarios.
>> lensClassDomain is kind of the default behaviour, so we could also
>> just call
>> it lensDomain. Or even better: Just have fresnel:domain
>> (fresnel:classDomain) and
>> fresnel:instanceDomain and use these properties on lenses and styles.
>> There
>> is no real reason to have the word lens or style in the property name.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Also fine with me. But this means that in the Fresnel ontology
> (described in RDFS/OWL), we have to define an rdfs:domain that is the
> union of fresnel:Lens and fresnel:Style. Is that ok ?
This makes implementation more difficult. With the separation of
lensDomain and styleDomain, it was easy to tell which resource was of
which type. Though at the point I was writing that code, it was
encouraged practice to subclass :Lens (no :purpose yet then), so relying
on rdf:type was harder.
This is mostly a matter of ease of implementation, I don't know how much
we care to make that a priority in sorting out the vocabulary. It is
possible to write more code to try to come away with the appropriate
class for a resource.
I also have that personal preference to not collide with well-known
terms (fresnel:domain vs. rdfs:domain), but I can deal...
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Thu Mar 24 2005 - 17:53:13 EST