- From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:00:31 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Hi Annika, Am 25.02.2011 23:19, schrieb Annika Flemming: >> - "no rede finition of existing vocabularies" - sometimes it necessary >> e.g., to achieve an OWL DL compiliance of an utilized vocabulary that >> doesn't fulfil this requirement originally > Oh ok, I didn't know that, thanks! See e.g. a related discussion on SemanticOverflow [1] >> >> - any reason for being sometimes quite strict re. the selected >> relations for specific indicators (e.g. 4.1) i.e., SIOC is for online >> communities and hence rather specific for that domain > First, I wanted to leave things like the interpretation of an > "established vocabulary" open to the reader. But as it is a diploma > thesis, I was asked to make clear definitions for the indicators which > wouldn't leave much room for interpretation. Okay. Then it might be good to propose recommendations as you already did it for some issues. Cheers, Bob [1] http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/1105/owl-dl-compliance-why-redefining-existing-concepts-propeties-in-own-ontology
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 23:01:09 UTC