Re: Resolveability of owl:real and owl:rational

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 16, 2020, at 16:08, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> 
>> Why on earth not? You are basically saying that it is not a good idea to document them.
> 
> As I participated in writing extensive documentation for them, that’s just obviously false.
> 
> This isn’t remotely a paraphrase, “basic” or not. 

Perhaps I should have been more careful in my phrasing. Of course there is documentation. But my understanding of ‘best policy’ after the http-range-14 nonsense had subsided was that resolving a URI should either get you a representation of the thing denoted, ie the state of the website in ‘ordinary’ cases, or an explanation of what the URI is intended to denote. Which in this case would be the OWL ontology one does indeeed find, but which has these two items unaccountably missing from it. So someone (or something?) which is following the rules, so to speak, will not be directed to the documentation by resolving the URI. Which is regrettable, particularly is it would have been trivial to have done this properly. 

Pat

> 
>> At the least, there could be an explanatory text in the form of a comment which conveys the intended meaning and usage. 
> 
> I think they are adequately and helpful described in the structural specification and in the semantics, which is what I’d recommend one read if one is interested in them. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Friday, 17 January 2020 07:45:37 UTC