I agree adding more OWN by degrees is a good idea.
But what, John, would you mean by "mandate".
Do you mean "When I have said something about a class in OWL I'm
happy for your to hold me to it",
or "When I have said something about a class in OWL, anyone calling
themselves a Link Data client would be required to make the inferences
from it."?
When you go down the latter path people run screaming.
There is some movement toward defining a category of agent which does
certain things such as RDFS, IFP, FP, sameAs (like Tabulator) and
adding some more limited OWL as you describe, possibly having more
than one
- Does anyone have an SPARQL server software which stores a set of
triples and queries automatically the (virtual) OWL-x closure of
them? (Ora's Wilbur engine did this with RDFS)
- If that functionality is done in a federated SPARQL system, do we
just expect inference within each server, or can one form some form
cross-linking allowing a OWL-aware query of two large separate datasets?
Tim
On 2009-05 -12, at 06:55, John Goodwin wrote:
I think there's a real question about whether you want data
providers mandating entailment regimes over their data
Maybe to some extent. I'd like to make it clear what I mean by a
certain
class and/or property in an ontology, and hence I would mandate
entailment based on that...but I'd also be happy with other people to
add extra (logically consistent?!) entailment regimes on top of
those if
necessary.
John
