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

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

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:41:34 +0000
Message-Id: <4EF4FCAE-4FDB-41C4-98D2-5648499B18B9@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

I believe that it was an error (compounded by me) to get involved in  
a discussion of modelling style, and suggest that we stop now!

What we *should* be discussing is how we are going to resolve the  
issue of "excessive duplication of vocabulary". The suggestion from  
Boris [1] is that in OWL DL we *either* (1) type the usage of the  
vocabulary *or* (2) require a strict separation of the vocabulary  
(which allows for some reduction in vocabulary). If we opt for (2),  
then the requirement can of course be relaxed in OWL Full -- indeed  
this is how it currently works in OWL 1.0.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0417.html

On 27 Nov 2007, at 17:12, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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).
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 17:41:48 UTC

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