- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:48:06 +0100
- To: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, Sven Schade <sven.schade@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, janowicz@ucsb.edu, public-locadd@w3.org
Hello Pascal, > If you're using the exactly same meaning (wrt. formal semantics), and > can guarantee that this is stable over time (the vocabulary you use may > get reworked), *and* you can guarantee that your twist on the meaning > (which you introduce through your reuse) will not cause any > inconsistencies if used jointly with all other usages elsewhere (which > you can't control), then there is indeed no problem with reuse. Providing equivalentX axioms trigger the same "stability over the time" problem when the target vocabulary evolve so you should anyway be concern by this issue. > However I would claim that you can essentially never guarantee this. And > even if you can, guaranteeing it is probably much more work than it's > worth :) Can should show me harmful examples of re-use of common terms from popular LOD vocabularies? Best regards. Raphaël -- 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 20:12:25 UTC