- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:21:17 -0400
- To: "Panzer,Michael" <panzerm@oclc.org>
- Cc: Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:01:16PM -0400, Michael Panzer wrote: > > Application Profiles constrain/describe what the DC Abstract Model calls > > Description Sets (what we might have called metadata records in the past) > > - collections of one or more Descriptions. Application Profiles do not > > describe vocabularies. > > The same could be done with OWL(2), but you would likely run into > problems with the open world assumption, amplified by missing > disjointness axioms at some point (see Pete Johnston's post from today, > who also points to resources on how OWL can be used as a constraint > language). > > Rules languages (as standardized by RIF) might be able to hit the sweet > spot here: compatible to OWL/RDF and with a place in the semantic web > architecture, but apparently easier for making (and controlling) > assertions not about "a world" but a given "document." It would be great if someone could bring these ideas into the discussion at the "joint meeting" on 22 October in Pittsburgh [1] -- especially if these approaches are actually being applied somewhere. Any volunteers, even for a lightning presentation? Tom [1] http://www.asis.org/Conferences/DC2010/program-sessions.html#jointmeeting -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 19:21:56 UTC