Modbus Dataproperty terms changed to align with best practices #336
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for wot-binding-templates ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are the changes to remove those terms intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't remove any term, just updated the names to not include the "has", but maybe the tool does additional magic
|
I'm ok with changing (even though funny enough I thought that convention was to use always a verb, but maybe it is just for ObjectProperties?). Just remember that the |
| @@ -129,54 +129,54 @@ binding:assignment rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty . | |||
| ################################################################# | |||
|
|
|||
| ### https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/modbus#hasAddress | |||
| :hasAddress rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ; | |||
| :address rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty ; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my expectation would be that hasAddress, hasCodeNumber, etc are correct. In other WoT ontologies, we use the same pattern (e.g., https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/hypermedia#hasTarget).
The context file is the place, which should do the mapping from address to hasAddress, code to hasCode, etc and vice versa.
It is definitly not incorrect to have them, we can still stay with the current convention. As @sebastiankb also pointed they are used in the other WoT ontologies in a similar manner. However, when constructing RDF statements they should be also understandable in the meaning and form sentences. The object properties normally have the Verbs, and the Dataproperty can also have verb but when it makes meaning, e.g., [resource] John Doe has a [property] address which is [value] X. |
|
TD Call 13.12:
|
fixes #335