Hi Markus,
Thanks for your responses. Markus, I think the point that Sebastian was
raising has more to do with practices for communities working on data
modeling for wikidata than specifically about OWL semantics. Let me
explain a little further. We are a group of 3-7 (depending on the week)
On 06.04.2015 22:02, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
Dear Sebastian,
Using OWL is surely a nice idea when the semantics is appropriate (i.e.,
where you want Open-World entailment, not constraints) and here the
Possibly misleading typo: I meant where, not here ;-) -- Markus
expressiveness is enough.
Dear Sebastian,
Using OWL is surely a nice idea when the semantics is appropriate (i.e.,
where you want Open-World entailment, not constraints) and here the
expressiveness is enough. This is much more difficult, however, than one
might at first think it is. For a simple example, the common
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for clarifying. I see your problem and I agree with your
approach. In fact, I think Webprotege is a big step forward in terms of
collaborative ontology editing. One could certainly improve this much
further, but there are many good ideas there. I am not sure that it
would
Sebastian, Benjamin, Elvira, Andra, Andrew,
Kudos on your progress with an OWL-centric approach to knowledge
representation. The community has been incorporating OWL concepts into
property definitions and ontology development on-wiki for some time, but
yours is the first Wikidata group I'm aware
Interesting approach, and one I would support. I have been against forcing
Wikidata into any other jacket than one of its own knitting, but this
approach makes OWL look like any other external database that may or may
not come with properties worth integrating into Wikidata's jacket
On Fri, Apr
