Sorry Christophe, I just found this now, thought it was on the mailing list. I am copying the mailing list to get other comments.
I may need you to repeat the question in another way, because I am not sure if I understand what the issue is - I think we defined sioc:UserAccount to be a sub-class of foaf:OnlineAccount, <owl:Class rdf:about="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#UserAccount";> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/OnlineAccount"/> ... Are you saying that something that has an account_of shouldn't be both an OnlineAccount and a UserAccount? Or rather, we should change the domain of account_of to OnlineAccount because of the inverseOf property? Thanks John On 22/02/2011 12:37, "Christophe Debruyne" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a bit puzzled by some statements in SIOC while analyzing it for a project. > > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#account_of";> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">account of</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">Refers to the foaf:Agent or foaf:Person who owns > this sioc:UserAccount.</rdfs:comment> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#UserAccount"/> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent"/> > <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#"/> > <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/account"/> > </owl:ObjectProperty> > > - sioc:account_of has domain sioc:UserAccount and range foaf:Agent > - foaf:account has domain foaf:Agent and range foaf:OnlineAccount > - yet, sioc:account_of has been defined as the inverse of foaf:account > > Isn't this wrong? I'm no expert, but wouldn't a reasoner deduce that all > foaf:OnlineAccounts are UserAccounts? If not, then it is still conceptually > wrong. After some searches, I found that Simon Reinhardt asked the same > question on the google group in January 2009. Both threads (with a couple of > days in between) didn't receive a clear answer or response. The file that I > retrieved las week is undergoing regular changes (which can be noticed by the > couple of "todo" comment statements and the discrepancy between what is > published in the core specification and the actual ontology. > > Could you please provide an answer wether or not this is an issue (and if so, > when it would be resolved). > > Best regards, > > Christophe Debruyne > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CHRISTOPHE DEBRUYNE > > Semantics Technology & Applications Research Lab > Vrije Universiteit Brussel > > office +32 (0) 2 629 35 40 > fax +32 (0) 2 629 38 19 > mobile +32 (0) 472 38 71 98 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en.
