Re: Schema.org and OWL

So the FOAF group was producing RDFS+++ and people were complaining that it
wasn't OWL.  If the FOAF document didn't imply that it was OWL then that was
their problem.  If it did imply that then that was the FOAF group's problem to
fix.  I don't see a fault in Protege there (although I seem to remember that
there were, or are, tools, maybe part of Protege, that helped Protege ingest
illegal inputs).


peter



On 06/06/2018 07:21 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, 06:43 Peter F. Patel-Schneider, <pfpschneider@gmail.com
> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 06/06/2018 06:12 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>     > [...]
>
>     >
>     > . OWL tools, especially DL, tend to crash out easily when they run into
>     > unexpected things.
>
>     It would be worthwhile having some evidence backing up this statement
>
>
>
> It may largely be Protege. I have for 15+ years regularly been emailed by
> people who couldn't make FOAF work in (usually) some version of Protege e.g.
> because we had claimed that foaf:mbox_sha1sum was inverse-functional, or we
> used bits of Dublin Core in the schema file without asserting the DC
> properties were annotational.
>
>     > [...]
>
>     > Dan
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2018 14:43:22 UTC