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

Re: Visualization of domain and range

From: Tim rdf <timrdf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:05:20 -0400
Message-ID: <80995bcd0906280705t50b49377geaf6c601e50c9fa4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernhard Schandl <bernhard.schandl@univie.ac.at>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>, public-lod@w3.org, public-semweb-ui@w3.org
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Bernhard Schandl <
bernhard.schandl@univie.ac.at> wrote:

> Instead of changing the original FOAF ontology (which only the owners of
> the FOAF namespace can do), I would suggest that you add another property
> for your application and define it as super-property of foaf:holdsAccount,
>
> foaf:holdsAccount rdfs:subPropertyOf ex:holdsAccount .
>
> and use ex:holdsAccount instead of foaf:holdsAccount. However whenever you
> encounter a foaf:holdsAccount you can treat it as instance of
> ex:holdsAccount.
>


That solves it. The solution came to me this morning as I was waking up, but
you beat me to it :-)


>
> If you do not allow ontology developers to define restrictions on the
> classes and properties they define, then we end up with plain collections of
> terms, but without the possibility to derive useful conclusions from the
> data. However to build meaningful applications we need constraints on the
> data, and if you do not need these constraints you have two options: either
> do not use inference, or define your own (unrestricted) vocabulary and link
> it to the .
>
> Best, Bernhard
>

That is a really good was of describing. Thanks for your insights!

Respectively,
Tim Lebo
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 11:52:10 UTC

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