Open JuergenGrupp opened 12 months ago
Yes, a good proposal.
Following our new naming conventions, I will split the properties into:
Award
isAwardedTo
Agent
Agent
isAwardedWith
Award
Another improvement for disambiguation:
instead of isAwardedWith
I will use holdsAward
And another improvement:
holdsAward
is the inverse of isAwardedTo
EditorialCommittee, May 6: should we rather use: isHeldBy instead of isAwardedTo? This opens the question, whether the naming should support building of SPARQL-requests or should it mainly support easy understanding. Rethink, whether "isHeldBy" might be a super-property for "isAwardedTo". But property hierarchies need to be designed carefully. Super properties are most helpful when the linked concepts are also in a hierarchy. Also: more precise properties are more efficient in terms of Queries. How about using "awards" or "praise"? "wins"<->"isWonBy" or "holds"<->"isHeldBy". Could also express nominations: "isNominatedFor"<->"nominates" ? Looks like "holdsAward"<->"isAwardedTo" is still the best option in terms of easy understanding, even if the rules are not met perfectly.
The object property
hasBeenAwarded
has as its rangeAward
andAgent
. More strangely, the second case has alsoAgent
as its domain, stating that "an agent has been awarded and agent". Two statements are probably intended:My suggestion is to split the property into two separate, but inverse object properties:
Award
hasBeenAwardedTo
Agent
Agent
hasBeenAwardedWith
Award