Skip to content
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

Modbus Dataproperty terms changed to align with best practices #336

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mahdanoura
Copy link
Contributor

fixes #335

@mahdanoura mahdanoura requested a review from relu91 as a code owner December 5, 2023 19:23
Copy link

netlify bot commented Dec 5, 2023

Deploy Preview for wot-binding-templates ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 3778413
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wot-binding-templates/deploys/656f789b2c28600008615b64
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-336--wot-binding-templates.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@mahdanoura mahdanoura added the modbus related to modbus protocol binding label Dec 5, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are the changes to remove those terms intentional?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't remove any term, just updated the names to not include the "has", but maybe the tool does additional magic

@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Dec 6, 2023

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 context.json should be updated.

@@ -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 ;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

@mahdanoura
Copy link
Contributor Author

mahdanoura commented Dec 6, 2023

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 context.json should be updated.

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.

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

egekorkan commented Dec 13, 2023

TD Call 13.12:

  • We are inconsistent in general so we should do this in one go for all ontologies. This should be a guideline for ontology editors
  • Since this change impacts the URLs (e.g. https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/modbus#hasAddress becoming https://www.w3.org/2019/wot/modbus#address), implementations that use the ontology will be affected. We will get more input for this from known users, such as from @sebastiankb .
  • We should think of a way to assign an "alias" but this will not be an automatic "redirect".
  • For TD specs, we should keep the "bad practice" way but for TD 2.0 we should analyze where the inconsistencies are concerning implementations and use cases.
    • A first analysis by @mahdanoura shows that td.ttl is fine but sub-ontologies have more these problems (e.g. hctl.ttl, wotsec.ttl etc).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
modbus related to modbus protocol binding
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

modbus ontology
4 participants