RE: plural properties should become singular

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:40 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 1/30/14 1:28 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >> OWL isn't a bad thing, so please use it where appropriate i.e., in
> >> situations where indicating the cardinality of a property actually
> >> value :-)
> > So that's essentially the question I'm asking: does it add value?
> 
> Yes it does. But best to use it in situations where utility is utterly
> obvious, as opposed to adding this kind of relation to every property
> description. Thus, it should be used sparingly.

I quite like how GoodRelations is using it:

  http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1.html#conventions

but that might indeed be overkill for Hydra. In other words, I don't have a
strong opinion about this.


> > Earlier on this list, it has been emphasized that Hydra (also)
> > focuses on non-RDF-minded developers.
> > However, if this group of people is the largest, then OWL might not
> > make much sense.
>
> The issue isn't "OWL" the issue is having the semantics in the data so
> that said semantics are comprehensible to agents (humans and bots). The
> beauty of RDF is that it lets us have lots of SHOULDs and very few
> MUSTs.
>
> > But as I wrote before, interesting inferences could be made for Hydra
> > with OWL [1].
> 
> Yes, and that should be there for engines with the capacity to reason
> against OWL relation semantics, when encountered.

+1. Where it adds concrete value with little to no costs we should
definitely add it. Even if just of use for a small group of users. I'm not
much concerned about making the machine-readable vocabulary description
"more complex". Very few non-RDF-minded developers will look at it anyway..
and for those few who do, we can easily make the JSON-LD definition pretty
enough.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler