Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
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
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
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
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
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
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 23 May 2012 at 4:12
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mcour...@gmail.com
on 21 May 2012 at 4:15