Re: Property "geographic identifier" in LOCN

Hello,

>>> IMHO, you can just define whatever you want in your local
>>> namespace, give it as much semantics as possible (or necessary)
>>> and then have an additional layer of axioms that establishes
>>> alignments. Many companies will (or do) it this way anyway
>>> because they are afraid of giving up control. Will there be a >>
>>> FOAF in 5 years from now?
>
> Indeed, I strongly second Jano's statement here. Agreement on one
> (common) world view will never be reached - and is not really
> desirable.

Nobody has argued for this. Let's be specific and not making general 
statements. We are not talking about a company making a vocabulary but 
about a community group within W3C trying to get consensus on a 
vocabulary, and yes, the vocabularies hosted on http://www.w3.org/ns/ 
are permanent[#].

Furthermore, we are talking about the particular case where a 
class/property has been defined in a vocabulary A and that another 
vocabulary B is about to define a class/property with the *same* 
meaning, minor perhaps some usage note. We are not talking about a 
different case.

So, I would like to understand why you believe it is better to indeed 
create this new class/property and add a 
equivalentClass/equivalentProperty axiom rather than re-using the 
existing class/property and potentially adding an additional usage note?

I'm personally in favor of avoiding the creation of 200 different Person 
classes if those ALL want to define Person in the same way.

> Maximizing re-use certainly is a valuable principle, but practice
> shows us that many groups favor new developments instead of (often
> more expensive) investigation for and adoption of existing bits and
> pieces.

This is what I call lazy ontology modeling. Do you have data that 
backups this statement that "practice shows that groups favor new 
developments"? My experience is the other way around, i.e. successful 
vocabularies re-use small vocabularies.
Best regards.

   Raphaël

[#] Quoting Phil, "Indefinitely meaning some time between the point 
beyond which no one cares because technology has moved on and the heat 
death of the universe."

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
Multimedia Communications Department
450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 13:44:19 UTC