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 that they
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 a
ww.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/#Keys
> >
> > On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 12:16 +0100, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >>
> >> I know that the compatibility of FOAF with OWL DL has been discussed a
> >> lot in the past (and still s
OAF with OWL DL has been discussed a
lot in the past (and still sometimes surfaces again). However, I'm
wondering, would it be reasonable to provide a DL version of FOAF in
complement of the official FOAF ontology?
More generally, wouldn't it be reasonable to provide alternative
versions
ree 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 such that (1) it is in OWL 2 DL and (2) it maximally preserves
>
27;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 modifies the FOAF