Re: plural properties should become singular

On 2/3/14 1:45 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Ultimately, if Hydra is intended to become a W3C Recommendation, working nicely with other specs, such as OWL may be an important factor. However, if the real world is geared towards influencing schema.org, then some alternative is probably necessary, as schema.org is already inconsistent with OWL (e.g., rangeIncludes/domainIncludes).
>
> For my projects, i've often use OWL Restrictions to impose cardinality and range constraints, but with my web-developer hat on, this is really difficult to understand, so having an alternative notation would be useful, as long as we can give it some formal semantics which may tie it back to OWL.

Gregg,

We should use OWL where relations appropriate. Let's not make-up some 
kind-of-OWL thing for the sake of schema.org (which does have the issues 
you've raised, for sure). It's better for OWL relations to be in place 
for processors that possess OWL processing capability -- as a way of 
planning for a future where relation semantics are either better 
understood and/or there will be a few high impact agents showcasing 
their utility etc... For the more typical Web application, these 
relations will simply be ignored, and maybe occasionally misused :-)


Kingsley

>>>> 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
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen