- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:12:02 -0400
- To: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Vasiliy Faronov wrote: > I think Dan has spotted a very good rule of thumb for subclass > materialization with his notion of "mid-level" classes. > > Here's another rule of thumb I can think of: materialize inferences that > map your data to better known, and more widely deployed, vocabularies. > > Example. A consulting company could develop a custom ontology for > describing businesses. Let's say it has a class ex:BusinessEntity which > has owl:equivalentClass gr:BusinessEntity. It's likely that some LD > clients will be familiar with the GoodRelations vocabulary but unable or > unwilling to do reasoning over custom ontologies. In this case, > explicitly spelling out that every ex:BusinessEntity is also a > gr:BusinessEntity may be helpful. > > Amen!! -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 16:12:32 UTC