How to solve issue 31 pertaining to use of underscores in relations

[GoogleCodeExporter]

BFO2 developers disagree as to whether relations labels should contain 
underscores or spaces as word separators, see  
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=31. It is unclear how to solve 
this. One proposal is to poll the BFO community, as one argument relies on such 
a survey dated 2007.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcour...@gmail.com on 21 May 2012 at 4:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think a poll is a good idea.
We should poll also as to whether we approve of the rule that relation names 
should as far as possible include a verb
We should poll also as to whether certain exceptions to this rule might be 
allowed (such as part_of) in light 

Original comment by ifo...@gmail.com on 21 May 2012 at 4:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Agreed that a poll is a good idea here.  

We could put together an online poll (e.g. SurveyMonkey) asking for feedback  
on several questions arising from open issues where we think that community 
input would be helpful in informing our decision-making process.  Other such 
question areas include the modularity of the BFO 2 in OWL offering, and the 
policy on inverse relations. 

Original comment by janna.ha...@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 1:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I suggest collect these issues for a while, attempting to resolve them amongst 
ourselves first, and in any case not sending more than a single survey. If we 
do a survey, I'd like to see reasons associated with answers so we understand 
what we are getting. 

Not having inverse relations would be a break from our past practice. We need 
to decide how much backwards compatibility we want to offer and then be 
consistent. So it makes little sense to me to hold onto legacy naming but then 
toss the policy on inverse relations we've practiced.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 2:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

A wiki page to collect issues has been created at 
http://code.google.com/p/bfo/wiki/SurveyIssuesCollection

Original comment by mcour...@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 3:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It isn't clear to me why results of a poll in 2012, viewed in 2017 will appear 
any better than a poll in 2007 appears in 2012. In order to avoid this constant 
churn, we should respect prior decisions unless there is new information that 
suggests revisiting the decision. I see no new information here. Note that the 
poll did not solely determine the naming conventions, which were and had been 
strongly advocated for a number of years by Barry, based on principles.

xref: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGChairReopen

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 2:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 4:12

• Changed state: Started