W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:16 +0100
Message-ID: <82593ac00906221245k552eb531wa4939dd8c8bb4a18@mail.gmail.com>
To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Hepp, Martin" <mhepp@computer.org>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hello!

>
> (moving this to LOD public as suggested)
>
> General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the LOD
> community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
> unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with existing
> standards unless you can justify the side-effects. And this stubborn "i
> don't care what the OWL specs says" pattern is silly, in particular if the
> real motivation of many proponents of this approach is that they don't want
> or cannot read the OWL specs.
>
> As for owl:imports:
>
> When importing an ontology by owl:imports, you commit to the whole formal
> account of that ontology. If you just include an element from that ontology
> by using it and hope that dereferencing will get the relevant formal account
> in your model, you expose your model to randomness - you don't know what
> subset of the formal account you will get served. Ontology modularization is
> a pretty difficult task, and people use various heuristics for deciding what
> to put in the subset being served for an element. There is no guarantee that
> the fragment you get contains everything that you need.
>

Sorry, just jumping on that, as this is something I am having quite a
lot of troubles to understand (and since quite a long time). Maybe I
am missing something obvious, but how does using owl:imports avoid
this randomness? When using it, you're still hoping that dereferencing
the object of owl:imports will get you the relevant information? I
agree that owl:imports allows you to commit to a whole ontology
instead of committing to single terms within an ontology, but I would
argue that in most cases, you just want to pick a few terms in an
ontology. For example, I may agree with the way OWL-Time models
time-zones etc., but I don't agree with the way it models time
intervals vs. events.

Also, I don't agree that questioning owl:imports is equivalent to
dismissing OWL all-together. I think most of the people on this list
are OWL-heads (having contributed or created quite a lot of
ontologies, some of them even being OWL-DL! :-) ), and I don't
remember seeing an anti-OWL statement on this list?

Cheers!
y
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 19:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC