Le 23/06/2009 23:06, Ian Davis a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Dan Brickley <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 and girls just pick and use the
bits and
pieces we like and don't care about the rest".
What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely
well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity.
One of those principles is partial understanding - the ability to do
something useful without understanding everything...
Absolutely.
We should also remember that multiple ontologies may exist that cover a
given term. I think this is often forgotten. There is no requirement
that the ontology statements retrieved by dereferencing the URI should
be used - they are only provided as _an_ additional source of
information. There may be many other ways to discover relevant
ontologies and a large class of those will be for private use. If I
choose to assert that dc:date and rev:createdOn are
owl:equivalentProperties then that is my prerogative. The beauty of the
semweb is that I can publish my assertions and potentially other people
could choose to adopt them.
Exactly.
So If I agree with you on this equivalence, and want to state that I
*endorse* all inferences that can be made from my data using your axiom,
I think owl:import'ing is, IMO, the thing to do.
Of course, I could still use rdfs:seeAlso, but it is not meant to imply
this kind of formal endorsement.
pa
