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

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

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:14:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4A433FE0.508@champin.net>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, 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>
Le 23/06/2009 23:06, Ian Davis a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org
> <mailto: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.


So If I agree with you on this equivalence, and want to state that I 
*endorse* all inferences that can be made from my data using your axiom, 
I think owl:import'ing is, IMO, the thing to do.

Of course, I could still use rdfs:seeAlso, but it is not meant to imply 
this kind of formal endorsement.

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 09:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:57 UTC