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

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

From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:06:58 +0100
Message-ID: <ec8613a80906231506k646c3b80me061ce2f121c928d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com, david@dbooth.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 23/6/09 11:01, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
>
>  And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community
>> which goes along the lines of "OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven
>> obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys and girls just pick and use the bits and
>> pieces we like and don't care about the rest".
>>
>
>  What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely
>> well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity.
>>
>
> One of those principles is partial understanding - the ability to do
> something useful without understanding everything...
>

Absolutely.

We should also remember that multiple ontologies may exist that cover a
given term. I think this is often forgotten. There is no requirement that
the ontology statements retrieved by dereferencing the URI should be used -
they are only provided as _an_ additional source of information. There may
be many other ways to discover relevant ontologies and a large class of
those will be for private use. If I choose to assert that dc:date and
rev:createdOn are owl:equivalentProperties then that is my prerogative. The
beauty of the semweb is that I can publish my assertions and potentially
other people could choose to adopt them.

Ian
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 22:07:39 UTC

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