W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

RE: Ontological constraints

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:16:43 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BD0C80A@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>

Sorry for being careless with my "in principle" qualifier. I'll use a
different example next time.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:46 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Svensson, Lars; Karen Coyle; public-lld
> Subject: Re: Ontological constraints
> Hi Jeff,
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:54:08PM -0400, Jeff Young wrote:
> > In principle, the newer dcterms:creator element could be upgraded to
> > owl:ObjectProperty because its rdfs:range setting doesn't allow
> literals
> > <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-creator>.
> This possibility has been raised before, but as Jonathan Rees pointed
> out on the pedantic-web list [1]:
>     The DC terms are very popular, and in particular many users of OWL
>     (and OWL-DL in particular) use them or adapt data sources that use
>     them. The practice is generally to make a copy of DC and then edit
> it
>     to turn it into an OWL or OWL-DL file. The popular ontology editor
>     Protege even provides such a DC variant as part of its
> distribution.
>     I think users would be served better by having a common OWL-DL
> version
>     of DC, whether provided by DCMI or by someone else. Protege's is
> close
>     to being such (although it is based on dc: elements instead of
>     terms). One problem is the question of whether the properties
> should
>     be annotation properties or object/data properties, which matters
> for
>     DL. IIUC Protege takes the position that the dc: properties are
>     annotation properties, while Bibo says that the dct: properties
>     object/data properties. I could fully sympathize if DCMI didn't
> want
>     to get into the middle of this feud.
> Tom
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/4vplrww
> --
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 20:17:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 March 2011 20:17:24 GMT