rwarren2
commented
7 years ago I get to recycle my old Ontology paper yet again in this discussion! http://rdf.muninn-project.org/ontologies/appearances.html#term_hasRomanticAversion http://rdf.muninn-project.org/ontologies/appearances.html#hasRomanticPreference
One of the basis for the above was the notion of preference vs. requirement or as a direct examples: not wanting to eat nuts because one has a deadly allergy vs. not wanting to eat nuts because one dislikes them. There may be room for a 'weaker' version of a relationship through sub-properties may not be the way to go since a requirement implying a preference is just asking for trouble.
This does bring up the question of what UninvolvedPoliticallyWith really means: is this a direct choice not to participate or an ignorance of the organization which is likely to occur for a very large number of people?
Similarly, for DistancedPoliticallyFrom does this mean that the person deliberately did something to distance themselves from it and if so, should we create an event instead?
SusanBrown
alliyya
This is related to https://github.com/cwrc/ontology/issues/84
Rather than creating instances for things like non-pacifism, I think it would be better to refer to pacifism, which is more of a real PA than non-pacifism.
We need a predicate, folks!
If the predicate is (as I'm currently thinking) Affiliates Politically With, then here are some possibilities:
Uninvolved Politically With Distanced Politically From Unaffiliated Politically With
Thoughts? Better ideas? @antimony27 @lemaka @jadepncr