On 12 May 2009, at 11:22, John Goodwin wrote:
I've been integrating various LOD resource for a small demo at work
and have come to the realisation than a bit of relatively
simple OWL
goes a long way in making the integration process more
complete. Not
that is was a great surprise really, but you soon realise that
owl:sameAs only gets you so far. IMHO we really need to get
OWL into
the LOD mix for linking vocabularies/ontologies as well as
data at the
instance level. RDFS is not enough.
There are some issues around here, my understanding is that
owl:sameAs is used a bit liberally in the LOD world as it is.
In principle it seems like a good idea though.
Owl:sameAs is used very liberally - maybe used of owl:disjoint will
spot
a few errors. But could it be that owl:sameAs is used liberally
because
the classes are not fully defined enough to give people enough
information to make the right links?
I was thinking more of this issue:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2009May/0071.html
re. slide 26. I've seen this done too, and it's quite concerning.
Other simple examples of needing OWL with LOD are genealogy. I've
started to convert my family tree into RDF, e.g.:
http://www.johngoodwin.me.uk/family/I0265
http://www.johngoodwin.me.uk/family/I0243
A bit of OWL e.g.:
Parent = foaf:Person and isParentOf some foaf:Person
isParentOf o isBrotherOf -> isUncleOf
Uncle = foaf:Person and isUncleOf some foaf:Person
Would save me writing long SPARQL queries for find instances of
Parent, Uncle etc.
Sure, seems like a good idea, that can be better done in the
local processor I would have thought though, rather than at
the LOD level?
Agreed - at least at first!
I think there's a real question about whether you want data providers
mandating entailment regimes over their data, with OWL it's probably
harmless, but when you add RIF rules into the mix it gets a bit more
complex.
Different apps may want to apply different rules, and there's a risk
of losing the provenance of entailed triples, if the closure is
computed at the server side. It's something I addressed in the last
academic (reasoning) store I built, but I don't think there's any
consensus on how you handle, or represent that information.
- Steve
--
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10
9AD
