- From: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:38:41 -0500
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Sven Schade <sven.schade@jrc.ec.europa.eu>, <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <public-locadd@w3.org>
On 1/10/2014 1:48 PM, Raphaël Troncy wrote: > 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. I am. Your observation is correct, which is exactly why I argue that the triples/axioms which link between different vocabularies should be cleanly separated from the other data. Once you mix and merge it in, it's a pain or impossible to separate. >> 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? I think the most obvious example is the abuse of owl:sameAs. Some other really nice examples are in Krzysztof's blogpost which he mentioned earlier I think: http://stko.geog.ucsb.edu/location_linked_data Others are obvious abuses, I recently found foaf:person used as a property for example. Pascal. > Best regards. > > Raphaël > -- Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler Dept. of Computer Science, Wright State University, Dayton, OH pascal@pascal-hitzler.de http://www.pascal-hitzler.de Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 02:39:13 UTC