Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor Ordered Collections. Fixes #112. #495
Refactor Ordered Collections. Fixes #112. #495
Changes from 2 commits
92c12d0
2825bcd
1168938
e1adc2c
ddd459c
f5935e3
ad8d92d
9292021
b8d4fe4
9f37651
a88a780
33a69ac
d4660c7
1ab44e1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The distinctionary pattern is written like this:
This expresses more clearly the idea that "An X is a type of Y that Z."
You also need an
allValuesFrom
restriction, so the full definition is:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rjyounes @daliadahleh Should we not remove the
someValuesFrom
? TheallValueFrom
enforces the object type on the property, and removingsomeValuesFrom
allows for an empty collection.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@uschold and I discussed the possibility of empty sets and opened a new issue to raise the question: #498. In theory I'm in favor of allowing empty collections, but we noted that if we allow empty collections, then the restriction must also be removed from
Collection
(gist:hasMember some owl:Thing
), which leaves it as a class without a formal definition.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Omit "stated." This implies a violation of the Open World Assumption.
In actual fact I would remove the entire sentence. The definition doesn't need to restate the restrictions, especially in this case, where the restrictions are not even the most salient part of the semantics. I would use something like this:
skos:definition "A member of an ordered collection. This resource serves as a proxy linking a real-world item in the collection to that collection, allowing the expression of positional and other information that applies to the item only in the context of the collection."
If you really want to keep your definition, then I would add the second sentence as a scope note.
I'm not entirely thrilled with the "real-world" term. Feel free to find something better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would use 'linking a member of a collection to that collection' to bypass the 'real-world item' awkwardness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sa-bpelakh that seems confusing because the class name (and the first sentence of the definition) suggests that the proxy is the 'member', while your definition suggests that the real-world item is the 'member'. I think 'real-world item' is clearer.