- From: Jens Lehmann <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:47:17 +0200
- 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
Hello, 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, Jens -- 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