W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: ISSUE-65 (excess vocab): REPORTED: excessive duplication of vocabulary

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:12:36 +0000
Message-Id: <5206A7B9-C914-4AAC-9483-D0C2FBFD14B1@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 27 Nov 2007, at 15:28, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Well... I did meet one example. DCMI (the organization behind the  
>> Dublin
>> Core metadata) is having problems exactly on that. They have an  
>> abstract
>> model document[1] where they speak about 'value surrogate' that can
>> either be a literal or non-literal. When mapping this abstract  
>> model to
>> RDF[2] they hit this problem (eg, is the value of a dcterm:subject
>> property a literal or not).
> I personally think that this example illustrates plain bad modelling
> practice. Can you point to some discussion of the motivations for this
> choice which might modify my view?

Data/Object Punning might arise from *changes* in modelling, for  
example, lifting from a weaker representation (RDF or a RDBMS) or a  
legacy representation (e.g., Old Skool DC).

While it might be bad modelling, I find it difficult to argue that  
these situations shouldn't be expressible (e.g., as a transition  
point between one style of representation and another).

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 17:11:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC