Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Renaming properties #89

Closed
vroddon opened this issue Jan 18, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Renaming properties #89

vroddon opened this issue Jan 18, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@vroddon
Copy link
Contributor

vroddon commented Jan 18, 2017

Shall we adopt the recommendations to prefix a property with "has" or "is"?
http://wiki.opensemanticframework.org/index.php/Ontology_Best_Practices#Naming_and_Vocabulary_Best_Practices

We would have properties like "hasPermission" instead of "permission", "hasConflict" instead of "conflict" etc.
I see some consensus from the minutes at https://www.w3.org/2017/01/09-poe-minutes but this is an important change for which I would like to have confirmation. Shall I rename the properties?

@riannella
Copy link
Contributor

The current practice is to only "fix" those terms that have the "same" URI (except) for the capital letter (such as /Permission and /permission) - and the change is to add "Has..." to the label for the properties - the purpose is to meet I18N requirements for different (label) languages.

We want to avoid changing URIs unless its something is broken ;-)

@vroddon
Copy link
Contributor Author

vroddon commented Jan 20, 2017

I have effected this changes in the TTL file.
Not yet updated the .html.

In particular, the following properties have been renamed.
permission --> hasPermission
prohibition --> hasProhibition
action --> hasAction
constraint --> hasConstraint
duty --> hasDuty
operator --> hasOperator
leftOperand --> hasLeftOperand
rightOperand --> hasRightOperand

The definition of permission, prohibition, action, constraint, duty and operator has actually been left, but marked as "deprecated" and pointing to the new term. Other references in the document have been updated.

@riannella
Copy link
Contributor

@vroddon This was not what the WG agreed to. The agreed to only change the label to "Has..." not the URI. We did not want to deprecate a term that is not broken (by changing its URI).
Can you please reverse this change?

@vroddon
Copy link
Contributor Author

vroddon commented Jan 22, 2017 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants