RE: FOAF DL

2010-07-24 Thread Michael Schneider
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

Re: FOAF DL

2010-07-19 Thread Javier de la Cueva
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

Re: FOAF DL

2010-07-16 Thread Dave Reynolds
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

Re: FOAF DL

2010-07-16 Thread Antoine Zimmermann
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

Re: FOAF DL

2010-07-16 Thread Dave Reynolds
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 >

FOAF DL

2010-07-16 Thread Antoine Zimmermann
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