W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Southampton Pub data as linked open data

From: Jens Lehmann <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:47:17 +0200
Message-ID: <48900065.9020003@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>, Chris Wallace <Chris.Wallace@uwe.ac.uk>, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org


Richard Cyganiak schrieb:
> Bijan, Knud, Bernard, thanks for the clarification.
> I'm indeed surprised! Subclassing rdfs:label is okay in RDFS, and it is
> okay in OWL Full, but it is not allowed in OWL DL.
> The RDF consumers I'm working on (RDF browsers and the Sindice engine)
> don't care if you're in OWL DL or not, so I'm tempted to argue that it
> doesn't matter much for RDF publishing on the Web. (IME, on the open
> Web, trust and provenance are much larger issues than inference, and I
> don't believe that the open Web will ever be OWL DL, so why bother.)

Apart from the subject of this discussion, I find such general
statements very dangerous. The fact that the tools you develop do not
require, or make use of, OWL DL isn't really a strong argument. There
are other people (like me) relying on reasoning, which is easier to
accomplish in OWL DL. Clearly, it is important to publish data even if
it does not conform to OWL DL, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't
bother to get it "right" (hopefully in OWL 2). Also note that it is not
important for the whole open web to be in OWL DL, but only those bits of
it you need for a particular task.

Kind regards,


Dipl. Inf. Jens Lehmann
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Homepage: http://www.jens-lehmann.org
GPG Key: http://jens-lehmann.org/jens_lehmann.asc
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 05:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:40 UTC