W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Soft ontology reuse

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:51:34 +0000
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <WM!11945ae278c3950428971a5344c6b42e47ce9be2c939fd7a40b6bdd653990e05c6a3ddfd91933b09ff8f77d968bc366b!@mailhub-mx4.ncl.ac.uk>
Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> writes:

> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:01:22 -0800, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:
>> No, they are open. They are just not 'linked' to other ontologies. In 
>> fact, many people would say that the way some of us think about 'reuse' 
>> of ontologies is highly problematic but that is an entirely different 
>> story. Keep in mind that the discussion here is a reflection on 
>> Alberto's email, not about whether LOV is useful or not (and I clearly 
>> believe it is).
> Yes, directly reusing ontologies (e.g. owl:imports) can come with many
> technical challenges such as inconsitencies at reasoning level (e.g. OWL)
> or network dependencies (purl.org still fresh in mind)
> So I understand many don't want to do such strong reuse - indeed I have myself
> moved instead to a model of a "soft reuse", with extensions of existing
> ontologies through "citations" instead.

This all sounds like a good idea to me, although I think it may well
integrate poorly with if someone else is NOT doing the same. For
example, if your ontology is inconsistent with another that you soft
import, then I am import both, my ontology now becomes inconsistent
perhaps unexpectedly.

Received on Friday, 20 January 2017 13:52:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:30:19 UTC