W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: dataset and Dataset

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:13:37 +0200
Message-ID: <516057C1.3020501@eurecom.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>, Makx Dekkers <makx@makxdekkers.com>, 'Bill Roberts' <bill@swirrl.com>, public-gld-comments@w3.org
Dear Richard,

> Multiple popular vocabularies that use this practice have been listed
> in the thread.

I have seen those. I still think this is rather anecdotal in comparison 
to the very large set of properties that has a hasXXX OR a isXXXBy  that 
one can found in the wild. Doing a quick search on LOV confirms me this.

> That's a convention coming from Description Logics that I haven't
> seen in any other modelling school.

Don't count on me to fuel any religious wars. I don't care where does it 
come from and I don't think it matters. I'm not myself feeling part of 
the DL school (as I suspect many) and I still model my vocabularies this 

> I'm with TimBL on this one:
> [[ On the other hand, also one should not encourage people having to
> declare both a property and its inverse, which would simply double
> the number of definitions out there, and give one more axis of
> arbitrary variation in the way information is expressed. ]]
> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/72

I fully agree with this too, but this is really an orthogonal issue. I'm 
not saying that one should model both a property and its inverse in the 
same ontology. I'm saying that when the ontology engineer has chosen the 
direction of the property he wants to model, then the label should 
convey this direction. Otherwise, the person who wants to re-use the 
property has to look at the domain and range, and not get confused of 
what is the domain and the range [as most of the people are, this is the 
same well-known problem that turning left/right with your car and there 
are many studies that show this :-)]. The hasXXX OR isXXXBy pattern 
fulfills this use case. I'm not saying again that you should have both 
in your ontology.
I hope this is clear.
Best regards.


RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
Multimedia Communications Department
450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 17:14:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 October 2018 10:43:22 UTC