Dear Conal, All,
Your arguments well taken, we are still obliged in formal ontologies to
have explicit semantics.
The use described by Robert, which fulfills a real need, appears here as
"emergent semantics"
from the community, which deviates fromthe W3C definition. I argue that
this can be
Dear Conal,
Got it! Yes, subproperties of P01/P02 create an additional constraint,
which obviously must hold. The reasoning that the PC class expands the
equivalent property can only be modeled by an OWL rule.
For practical data entry, this should be hidden to the user by a tool,
which
Dear Martin
I'm not sure what you meant by "partially declared subproperties" there (the
ambiguity of the term "subproperty" in this discussion doesn't help). I think
I understood the rest of what you were saying, though.
To be clear, all I was saying was that I would prefer not to publish RDF
Dear Conal,
There is no conflict with adding subproperties. Once we have defined in
FOL the logic of properties of properties, each PC class implies its
base property. Hence, logically, the subproperty and any added ".1" will
hold for the instances declared and imply the same base property.
Thanks Martin, for the link to
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CRMpc_v1.1_0.rdfs
This is actually very close to (and compatible with) the approach I
suggested in my earlier email, and I'm embarrassed to say I wasn't aware of
it at all.
I've managed to find some background material
