- From: Stephen Richard via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 15:54:01 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Without being familiar with ADMS, and following @dr-shorthair 's concern about incoherent inferences due to multiple ontology imports, it seems to me the operational criteria for whether to import or not should involve what kind of assertions/restrictions/implications are brought by the imported vocabulary. If the import target is simple a bunch of owl:class assertions with rdfs:label and other annotation properties, maybe some rdfs:subClassOf assertions (internal to the vocabulary), then the import is not problematic. On the other hand, if the import has a bunch of domain and range restrictions, transitive, inverse properties, owl:restriction assertions, and other statements that have inferencing implications, then there is good reason to decouple the ontologies-- implement local classes and properties, and offer a mapping ontology that can be imported in a profile to bring in the implications from the more 'semantically rich' ontology. I think this is the pattern used in SOSA and makes a lot of sense to me. So, what kind of implications does adms:status bring? -- GitHub Notification of comment by smrgeoinfo Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1238#issuecomment-638287632 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2020 15:54:03 UTC