- From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:43:50 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Just a note on the very first problem here (I will not dive into the issue of whether we need properties to represent (in)compatibility!). The fact that the [formal semantics of OWL](https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20121211/) specify that the domains and ranges of `owl:backwardCompatibleWith` and `owl:incompatibleWith` are owl:Ontology is quite a showstopper for using these two properties specifically. In general I'm not the one that is bothered too much by the consequence of applying OWL reasoning, as few among us do it. But in this case it could have quite bad consequences. The notion of ontology is quite flexible, but I'm not very comfortable with saying that potentially any DCAT dataset could be named an ontology. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1258#issuecomment-784867334 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2021 07:43:52 UTC