Dear All,
Please let me summarizing the discussions about making rdfs:label IsA P1
is identified by, without triggering any more discussion on it:
a) This declaration obviously is against *syntactic practice* in RDFS
b) It appears to be a logically correct rendering of the CRM, because we
can infer that uses of Literal via rdfs:label are instances of E41
Appellation
c) The *ontological* interpretation of the (textual) definition of RDFS
for rdfs:label supports the interpretation
hat uses of Literal via rdfs:label are instances of E41 Appellation
d) obviously it does not support inheritance of properties, but this is
not fixed by the CRM FOL definition.
e) RDF platforms and SPARQL appear to behave as expected when confronted
with the statement
f) Usual *OWL versions* seem to cause conflicts with this statement,
whereas OWL full does not strictly separate Literals from objects anymore.
g) The latter is serious.
i) making rdfs:label IsA P1 is identified by is a CRM-SIG decision from
2018. No new evidence since then.
Therefore I propose to follow Robert's proposal, to put into a separate
RDFS module the statements that declare subproperties of P1 is
identified by and in RDFS have range Literal (albeit in practice filled
with syntactic structures, such as xsd:datatypes).
Then, users of OWL version that would create conflicts may omit this
module, and write adequate query inferences to get the respective values.
Other users may use both files in combination.
Best
Martin
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
