Re: survey: who uses the triple foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label?

Dear Dan,

On 2010/11/12, at 20:08, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The FOAF RDFS/OWL document currently includes the triple
>
> foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label .
>
> This is one of several things that OWL DL oriented tools (eg.
> http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator) don't seem to like, since it
> mixes application schemas with the W3C builtins.
>

[snip]

> 3. would you consider checking for ?x rdf:type foaf:LabelProperty or
> other idioms instead (or rather, as well).

No.

> 4. would you object if the triple "foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf
> rdfs:label " is removed from future version of the main FOAF RDFS/OWL
> schema? (it could be linked elsewhere, mind)

Please Dan. I really don't like the idea of removing this triple. I am  
not an expert on ontology but we are talking about Linked Data here in  
mailing list. Linked Data means linking data across domains and  
ontologies are data. We have to encourage people to make links between  
different ontologies so that we can do more inference, not only OWL- 
based, in the future.

People can hard-code {foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label} into  
their system but I really don't think this is very elegant and  
subpropertying rdfs:label is the only clue that these label properties  
are related.

This is also pure fact-finding. If we add {rdfs:label a  
foaf:LabelProperty} to RDFS, will that break even more systems?

I see only two options:

1. Do nothing
2. Delete foaf:name and ask people to use rdfs:label instead


--- Theoretical Discussions I am not good at ---

If you deleted {foaf:name rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label}, the means it  
was a lie. And it is very sad now that lots of people are relying on  
this lie.

What exactly is the reason why DL tools don't like this triple? Is it  
logically valid or it is some bug in the DL tools. I am never good at  
descriptive logic but I can try to learn it.


Cheers,

Kenny

Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 20:13:26 UTC