- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:49:10 +0100
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
A clarification: I prefer a real-world example, but I'm perfectly fine with keeping Ghislain's example as it is for the time being! Antoine On 12/10/15 2:46 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi Ghislain, Bernadette, > > Thanks, Ghislain! > I agree that the example fit better BP 17. However it may need some more text. I.e. what the example should tell is that it's perfectly alright to use a simple representation for a road vocabulary. One doesn't need a full ontology that would try to expressing in a formal OWL axiom that bicycle paths are roads that cannot be used by cars. > > Note that I'd prefer an example made of an already existing vocabulary, not a toy example. BP 17 has been criticized as being a recommendation for building vocabularies, we should keep sending the message that it's for the wider area of creating and re-using vocabularies. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > On 12/8/15 3:34 PM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote: >> Hi Berna, >> >>> Le 8 déc. 2015 à 15:07, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br <mailto:bfl@cin.ufpe.br>> a écrit : >>> >>> Thanks a lot for your example! I liked your proposal and I suggest to include it in the document. >> >> Great! >>> However, I was in doubt if we should use an existing standard instead of creating a new one. Maybe, your example is more suitable for BP17:Choose the right formalization level. What do you think? >> >> Now that I read again both BP15 and BP17, I think you are right. The example is more suitable for BP17. >> >> Congrats again for the huge work on this document. >> Cheers, >> >> Ghislain >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D >> Mail: ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com <mailto:ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com> >> Web:http://www.atemezing.org >> Twitter: @gatemezing >> About Me: https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2015 13:49:51 UTC