 |
 |
Dear all, It has been brought to my attention that Simon made the point of my previous message on the Usage list back in May [1]: >An issue with the first two is whether the element-refinement >qualifiers should be "adjectives" or "nouns", or in another system, >"constraints" or "specialisations". For example the token >"alternative" merely modifies "Title", so the full qualified-element >name must concatenate the element and qualifier, e.g. "Title.alternative". >On the other hand, "is Format Of" specialises, and thus replaces, >"relation" so the qualified-element name only needs to be"isFormatOf". >In general the latter approach is less explicit regarding the hierarchy >and requires that the schema that defines this to be consulted. >On the other hand, it is perhaps neater and matches common oo coding >practice better. It looks like we are using both approaches in >practice, so I see little to choose between these. (I think one could see "isFormatOf" as an adjective of "relation" too -- an "isFormatOf kinda relation" -- but that is a minor quibble.) He points out, at any rate, we are using both approaches in practice. Perhaps we can simply continue to have it both ways? Tom [1] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-05/0002.html _______________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask] GMD Library Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%