Open dylan-sa opened 1 week ago
(I think i brought this up when the linked issue was discussed)
"destination," to me, implies too much intention. An airplane might have a flight path JFK - LAX and get diverted to MSP. The destination is LAX, but the end of the journey was MSP. I think using hasTerminus
could skirt this issue.
@dylan-sa We distinguish comesFrom/goesToPlace
from comesFrom/goesToAgent
. hasOrigin
and hasDestination
would confuse that distinction, but I agree with your other points. We could reconsider collapsing the two sets of predicates as in the issue you cite.
@pppelll I also like the point about intentionality of "destination." Perhaps just comesFrom
and goesTo
if we are going to collapse the agent/place sets.
See also issue #1024. Possibly hasRecipient/hasGiver
could be used across the board for the agent predicates since we seem to have no clear and consistent way to distinguish them from comesFrom/goesToAgent
.
The text definitions for
comesFromPlace
andgoesToPlace
are 'origin' and 'destination', respectively.hasOrigin
andhasDestination
strike me as better names for these properties. Here are a few reasons:Address
in addition toPlace
, so the current names are potentially misleading.hasDestination
seems slightly more general thangoesToPlace
, which could make it more reusable. For instance, it seems fine to say that a travel request has New York City as its destination, but not that the travel request goes to New York City.Are there good reasons to keep the names as is?
I see some previous discussion of
hasOrgin
andhasDestination
here.