My two cents: I guess a tool functionality is not a criterium for the usage...so I fully agree: copy and clone is not a solution in the end where we want to reuse resources directly without modifying (if if tools can do this easily...). Everybody will copy and clone and it will be chaos. In my questions on usage of resources the answer was often also " just copy and make your own" where I just want to reuse 100% and not bother anymore.
But ok which characteric of the SW is more important: flexability or (direct) reuse? Intersting topic.... Michel Bohms 2013/7/12 Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> > On 7/12/2013 11:46, Simon Cox wrote: > > Ralph Hodgson wrote: > > > I note your question on OWL-DL compliance. This is hard to do when > SKOS is in the mix. > > Indeed. However, since QUDT only uses SKOS incidentally, it would be > better not to include SKOS at source. This would make > QUDT immediately usable in OWL-DL compliant applications. Currently the > onus is the wrong way round IMO. The SKOS axioms could still be provided > in a separate resource. However, I'm not really convinced that SKOS match > adds much in this context. Better to make it an annotation property, such > as rdfs:seeAlso. > > Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > Also, for OWL DL compliance just download a copy of QUDT and delete the > triples that you don't want > > Yes, that is what we have done for now. But we would prefer to refer > directly to the web-hosted resource. Clone and modify is not really in the > spirit of the semantic _web_ is it? > > > I would turn this around and claim that OWL DL, or at least some OWL DL > tools, are not in the spirit of the Semantic Web. In RDF it is possible to > merge together data from various sources, simply by collecting triples into > a single logical graph. If OWL DL tools then cannot handle the results, > then there is a problem with their own inflexibility. I remember annotation > property discussions from my Protege days seven years ago, and I can hardly > believe this is still a problem in 2013. Which OWL DL tools are you using? > > Thanks, > Holger > > -- > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise > Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, > TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. > 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/topbraid-users?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. 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/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
