When the recursive fetching is computer, we apply RDFS + some owl
reasoning (OWLIM being the final reasoner at the moment) and index it.
Just out of interest, if you detect an inconsistency do you still index it?
Not an expert at all but i believe the supported subset is not very prone to
While we could have countless arguments over the appropriateness of DL
(or OWL 2) in the Web environment, the bottom line is whether or not
owl:imports adds useful information - seems hard to see a problem with
that, whether agents can reason or not. The follow your nose thing.
What's the problem
Just a remark about what we're doing in Sindice, for all who want to
be indexed properly by us.
we recursively dereference the properties that are used thus trying to
obtain a closure over the description of the properties that are used.
We also consider OWL imports.
When the recursive fetching
On 22/6/09 23:16, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Ontology modularization is
a pretty difficult task, and people use various heuristics for deciding what
to put in the subset being served for an element. There is no guarantee that
the fragment you get contains everything that
Hi Dan:
I think Alan already gave examples this morning. An ontology can contain
statements about the relationship between conceptual elements - classes,
properties, individuals - that (1) influence the result to queries but
(2) are not likely retrieved when you just dereference an element
, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/
Hi Michael:
(moving this to LOD public as suggested)
General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the
LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when
On 23/6/09 09:33, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
Hi Dan:
I think Alan already gave examples this morning. An ontology can contain
statements about the relationship between conceptual elements - classes,
properties, individuals - that (1) influence the result to queries but
(2) are not likely
: mark.birb...@webbackplane.com, David Booth da...@dbooth.org, Linked
Data community public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/
It was not my intend to insult anybody. But I still don't get why some
of you want to recommend a pattern that breaks with a current W3C
Martin,
[SNIP]
As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the
beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run.
I meant: Deceptively Simple is good. While Simply Simple is bad due
to inherent architectural myopia obscured by initial illusion of
cheapness etc..
What
Martin,
partially you could solve the problem yourself by putting the
owl:import triples in your ontology fragments e.g. the fragment, when
served, says owl import so that you're sure the ontology is used as
a whole..
would this do it? :-) fixing the problem in a single location might
be so much
Hi Kingsley,
You are of course right - I assume that, despite the terminological mess
I introduced, you agree with my line of argument; I fully acknowledge
it is heavily inspired by our San Jose sushi talk ;-)
Martin
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Martin,
[SNIP]
As Kingsley said - deceptively
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Giovanni Tummarello g.tummare...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just a remark about what we're doing in Sindice, for all who want to
be indexed properly by us.
we recursively dereference the properties that are used thus trying to
obtain a closure over the description of
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
On 23/6/09 11:01, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community
which goes along the lines of OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven
obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys
Hello!
(moving this to LOD public as suggested)
General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the LOD
community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with existing
standards unless you can
[snip]
Yup, re owl:imports, I enthusiastically added it to the FOAF spec when
some OWL WG insider suggested it was the right thing to use, and
dutifully removed it when someone (I forget who in both cases - quite
possibly same person!) a few years later told me it had fallen from
fashion
Hi Dan,
I'm afraid I don't completely follow the history of the discussion
that Martin is raising, but the reason he has included me on the CC
list is because during a chat at SemTech last week, he asked me what I
thought about owl:imports. I said that I was actually using it in my
RDFa
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Martin Hepp
(UniBW)h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Ontology modularization is
a pretty difficult task, and people use various heuristics for deciding what
to put in the subset being served for an element. There is no guarantee that
the
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Martin Hepp
(UniBW)h...@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Ontology modularization is
a pretty difficult task, and people use various heuristics for deciding
18 matches
Mail list logo
