Re: isolating shapes in named graphs

On 11/26/2014 16:22, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> I agree re "situational". As a counter example, the FOAF ontology 
> *could* say that foaf:mbox had a cardinality of one, but that would 
> needlessly restrict its usage. (At TPAC, Tantek beat me up about 
> having cardinalities attached to vocabulary definitions. After a sound 
> drubbing, I managed to explain that he was beating up the wrong guy.) 

I don't understand this argument. If I publish an ontology then of 
course I have certain semantics in mind. If I am sufficiently convinced 
that no skos:Concept shall have more than one prefLabel in the same 
language then I would add this to the *public* ontology, for everyone. 
How else could applications make meaningful use of SKOS if they cannot 
even assume those invariants? In other words, why would anyone reuse 
SKOS if they then violate the contracts? This is not 
application-specific. If someone wants to use prefLabel for something 
else, then they should not use that property in the first place.

Having said this, any RDF graph can contain any number of triples, so a 
constraint is technically just a "recommendation".


Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 06:38:18 UTC