Hi!
One note of caution!
The FOAF-DL ontology is only (approximately) equivalent to the original
version of FOAF in OWL /2/, since OWL keys have only been introduced as of
OWL 2. Older existing systems that depend on the FOAF inverse-functional
data properties (IFDPs) have to make sure
El 16/07/10 13:16, Antoine Zimmermann escribió:
Dear all,
[...]
The Yoda vocabulary [3] is used to relate alternative versions of an
ontology. Here, it is said that there is a preferred version, which is
the official FOAF ontology.
Critiques to any of the previous comments are
it be reasonable to provide alternative
versions of an ontology? Think of XHTML: there are three different XML
Schemas for XHTML [1]. One could imagine alternative versions like FOAF
(Full), FOAF-DL, FOAF-lite...
Anyway, I did it: I've made a FOAF-DL ontology which modifies the FOAF
ontology
versions like FOAF
(Full), FOAF-DL, FOAF-lite...
Anyway, I did it: I've made a FOAF-DL ontology which modifies the FOAF
ontology such that (1) it is in OWL 2 DL and (2) it maximally preserves
inferences of the original FOAF ontology [2].
Interestingly, FOAF-DL is an OWL 2 RL ontology
FOAF ontology?
More generally, wouldn't it be reasonable to provide alternative
versions of an ontology? Think of XHTML: there are three different XML
Schemas for XHTML [1]. One could imagine alternative versions like FOAF
(Full), FOAF-DL, FOAF-lite...
Anyway, I did it: I've made a FOAF-DL ontology
generally, wouldn't it be reasonable to provide alternative
versions of an ontology? Think of XHTML: there are three different XML
Schemas for XHTML [1]. One could imagine alternative versions like FOAF
(Full), FOAF-DL, FOAF-lite...
Anyway, I did it: I've made a FOAF-DL ontology which
