[rdfweb-dev] Clay Shirky - Relationship

Jeremy Gray jeremy at jeremygray.ca
Wed Mar 17 00:56:24 UTC 2004

Thanks for the response, Ian. I saw your post a few days ago but at the time
was only monitoring the mailing list externally. I have since signed up, in
part to pose the question I have now posted.

I do think that it is important to normalize the property names so that
those reading and writing RDF using the Relationship schema can do so
intuitively and confidently. It would also establish a solid pattern that
could be used when expanding the Relationship schema, and be developers of
other schemas inspired by it.

Preferably, such normalization would make clear "normal" properties,
inverses, those that are symmetric, etc.. Perhaps a "has" vs. "is/Of" vs.
"has/With" pattern or something along those lines.

A hasFriend B
B isFriendOf A
A hasFriendshipWith B
B hasFriendshipWith A

Not that I'm firmly advocating that particular naming pattern, just that one
be created or adopted for sake of consistency.

As a potential alternate style, one could ease off on the explicitness of
the "has" and "is" that I've placed in the example above, implying them

A (has) friend B
B (is) friendOf A
A (has) friendshipWith B
B (has) friendshipWith A

which would still establish a consistent pattern, even with certain bits
implied instead of explicit.

If some other modeling effort has resulted in a good pattern that can be
leveraged by all means use it. Please consider the above examples to be just
that - examples.

Jeremy Gray

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Davis [mailto:iand at internetalchemy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:06 PM
To: Jeremy Gray
Cc: rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] Clay Shirky - Relationship

Hi Jeremy,

On Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 8:50:13 PM, Jeremy Gray wrote:

> Can someone (Ian or Eric perhaps?) clarify the intended interpretation 
> for the employed patterns?

I'm open to normalising the property names. See my post from a couple of
days ago in this list. But I've only had one comment in favour of renaming
properties and one against. I'd like to hear some more opinions from people
who would like to use the vocabulary.


http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand 

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list