Re: [SMW-devel] Request for renaming "n-ary relations"

[Jon L. <dat...@gm...>]

Gu wrote:
> I'm sure the present implementation of the "n-ary" property is only an early
>  stage of this vital feature but I agree that the present state could be
>  described more precisely by a different name.
It's not a matter of the present state being incomplete.  Even in its
present, incomplete state, it has gone beyond being called a relation
since its component values can be properties of any type, not just
relations.  "N-ary property" is more accurate than "N-ary relation".

But my complaint isn't that so much as it is the "N-ary" side, where
it isn't so much a question of accuracy as it is technicality.
Indeed, as things stand, "N-ary" is technically more accurate than
"structured" or "composite", as the latter two carry the implication
that the component values have their own names, the way that fields in
a c-style struct do.  Calling it "structured" or "composite" instead
of "N-ary" actually anticipates future functionality rather than the
current state of its implementation.

>  However, I just want to express my gratitute that it exists at all because for
>  my own purpose the whole SMW would be of little use without it. So thanks to the
>  developers.

Oh, definitely.

-- 
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang