Re: Southampton Pub data as linked open data

Bijan,

Wow, seems like I really pushed the wrong buttons! My intention *was*  
to be controversial, but not *that* controversial. I didn't mean this  
as a personal attack on you. I meant it as an attack against a  
specific technical decision made in the design of OWL. It is evident  
that I crossed a line here and for that I apologize, and I accept the  
blame for the temporary deterioration of the thread.

I think we agree on two facts:

1. Creating subproperties of rdfs:label puts ontologies into OWL DL,  
which is undesirable for OWL reasoners.

2. Creating subproperties of rdfs:label enables RDF consumers like  
Tabulator to do some useful presentational things.

So there's a real conflict. We don't want to force ontology authors to  
pick sides, so it would be good to resolve it somehow. There are two  
proposals:

a) Accept that creating subproperties of rdfs:label was a bad idea,  
and change the RDF browsers and existing ontologies to use either a  
different property or a different mechanism,

b) Accept that subproperties of rdfs:label are a fact of life, and  
change the OWL reasoners to automatically clean up those parts that  
are outside of OWL DL.

To me it is not self-evident that a) is the correct answer. I would  
prefer b). I admittedly have not much clue about OWL, so please  
forgive me if I display my ignorance once more, but wouldn't it be a  
nice feature anyway if OWL reasoners were able to automatically clean  
up ontologies to the desired level of Full, DL, or Lite? Would that be  
a workable alternative, instead of designing a new mechanism for  
presentational annotations?

Any opinions appreciated.

Richard


On 30 Jul 2008, at 00:28, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Jul 29, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> On 29 Jul 2008, at 15:23, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Jul 2008, at 15:08, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making something like pub:name a subProperty of rdfs:label is  
>>>> essential
>>>> for the Tabulator for example to know it can use names as labels  
>>>> in the UI.  So please do it
>>>
>>> I would suggest that Tabulator find a better way. E.g., something  
>>> Fresnelish.
>
> For many reasons. I.e., I would recommend this even if  
> subpropertying rdfs:label becomes legit OWL DL.
>
>> Let me see.
>
> Try *thinking* next time.
>
>> 1. The RDF working group defines RDF and RDFS, including the useful  
>> utility properties rdfs:label, rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso and  
>> rdfs:isDefinedBy.
>
> Er...to say that they "defined" them is stretching things a bit. E.g.,
>
> """(rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy and rdfs:label are  
> included here because some constraints which apply to their use can  
> be stated using rdfs:domain, rdfs:range and rdfs:subPropertyOf.  
> Other than this, the formal semantics does not assign them any  
> particular meanings.)"""
>
>> 2. RDF people start to use these properties in conformance with the  
>> specs.
>
> Also stretching things a bit.
>
>> 3. While defining OWL-DL, the OWL WG introduces rather arbitrary  
>> restriction on all these properties.
>
> It's not actually arbitrary per se, but I do understand that  
> technical considerations are a lost cause on you.
>
>> 4. OWL people ask RDF people to stop subclassing these properties  
>> in order to meet the restrictions imposed by OWL-DL.
>
> Do whatever you want.
>
>> This doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> Many things don't, I see. I notice you elided the fact that you have  
> a rather ridiculously constrained notion of the "open web". There's  
> no *need* to be hostile, after all. (And yes, you started the tone  
> in the gutter in the face of non-guttered tone.)
>
>> The OWL WG blundered when they redeclared these properties as  
>> annotation properties.
>
> That part is quite sensible, actually. The design of RDF is  
> problematic in several ways not least in mixing domain modeling and  
> annotative stuff.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if these choices don't affect you. Good for  
> you. I even understand that you don't care about people for whom it  
> matters. Also good for you.
>
>> [snip]
>>>> Presumably OWL DL systems can be built to ignore the  
>>>> rdfs:subClassOf fact when they do OWL-DL reasoning on the data.
>>
>> +1. You broke it, you fix it.
>
>
> Thanks for playing.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 02:08:09 UTC