solid / solid/data-interoperability-panel
Avoid creating owl:propertyChainAxiom like properties
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 58
- Forks
- 18
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
I reference OWL Property Chains since they seem to be a formal way of defining some of properties current draft of interop vocab proposes.
I would like to take for example interop:applicationAuthor and interop:applicationAuthorName. I don't understand need for such flattening. Instead of having
<https://app.example/>
interop:applicationAuthor <https://alice.example/> ;
interop:applicationAuthorName "Alice" .
We could simply go with
<https://app.example/>
interop:applicationAuthor <https://alice.example/> .
<https://alice.example/>
foaf:name "Alice" .
It seems that vocab tries to define following property chain
interop:applicationAuthorName owl:propertyChainAxiom ( interop:applicationAuthor foaf:name ) .
I don't see reason for adding such properties to the vocab, especially that we don't intend to rely on OWL reasoning.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the issue's OWL Property Chains reference and compare the proposed interop:applicationAuthor and interop:applicationAuthorName examples with the nested foaf:name model. Review the current interop vocabulary to identify the affected properties; done means reaching and documenting a decision on whether the flattened properties should remain.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100