Property talk:Was assassinated on

New Semantics?

RDF has triples, so for example(JFK "Was assassinated") isn't valid RDF. (JFK "Was assassinated" JFK) is, but is redundant.

Was assassinated on

One option would be to replace it with "was assassinated on" and have (JFK "Was assassinated on" date).

Was assassinated by

One option would be to replace it with "was assassinated by" and have (JFK "Was assassinated by" "someone").

"assassinated"

Simpler still, (and equivalent to the above) would be just to use "assassinated". i.e. (CIA "assassinated" JFK).

Robin (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2013 (GMT)

I go along with all that. Same goes for "Is author", "Was murdered". I'm still feeling my way with these a bit. Also best to learn to be rigorous about these things at the outset before rolling out more properties. Make what alterations you see fit and I'll have a good look at changes and discuss if I see issues - real or imagined. --Peter P (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2013 (GMT)

another idea

Avoiding Redundancy

Working on the principle of "as little duplicate information as possible", having a property for assassination dates is superfluous if there is already an assassination page with a date. In this case, linking an assassination page to a person implicitly yields the assassination date (as well as other data, such as means, motive etc.) So the property becomes a link from the PERSON to the EVENT (or vice versa). Since assassinations can already be identified by "Constitutes::Assassination", the only work to be done is to connect them to their subject. I think a property such as "Has mainSubject" or "Has victim" would do it. Robin (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (GMT)

Agree all that too. I'm a bit distracted at present (see Wikispooks talk:Site Status). I'm happy for you to just plough on with it --Peter P (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2014 (GMT)