Re: [poe] Dc:license vocabulary hijacking?

Dear all,

Ontology hijacking was first (and formally) defined by Aidan Hogan in 
2009 (see page 14 [1]), in plain words said to be "/the redefinition by 
third parties of external classes/properties such that reasoning over 
data using those external terms is afected/" (see [2]). The problem 
naturally appeared in the context of /reasoning on large scale RDF 
datasets/ --but already in [1] an immediate and easy solution was given: 
to pay attention to the sources' authority.

Out of this context, stating facts about other's ontology is not a bad 
practice. Moreover, it is a necessary practice, well aligned with the 
RDF foundations. I dare to quote the RDF concepts in [3]:

    To facilitate operation at Internet scale, *RDF is an open-world
    framework that allows anyone to say anything about anything*. In
    general, it is not assumed that all information about any topic is
    available. A consequence of this is that RDF cannot prevent anyone
    from making nonsensical or inconsistent assertions, and applications
    that build upon RDF must find ways to deal with conflicting sources
    of information.

Hence, *my opinion is firm about leaving things as they are now*.


[1] A. Hogan, A. Harth, and A. Polleres. Scalable Authoritative OWL 
Reasoning for the Web.Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst., 5(2), 2009

[2] Aidan Hogan, Andreas Harth, Alexandre Passant, Stefan Decker, Axel 
Polleres, Weaving the pedantic web. In Christian Bizer, Tom Heath, Tim 
Berners-Lee, and Michael Hausenblas
(Eds.), Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, 
LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010, volume 628 of CEUR Workshop 
Proceedings,, 2010. URL


El 19/12/2017 a las 19:20, Ivan Herman escribió:
> In section 3.5.2 of the vocab, on target policy, it says that 
> |hasPolicy| has |dc:license| as a sub-property. This statement also 
> appears in the ontology:
> |dct:license rdfs:subPropertyOf odrl:hasPolicy .
> |
> What this means is that if |dc:license| relates /any/ two instances in 
> the world, then |odrl:hasPolicy| is also a valid relationship for 
> those instances. That is referred to as "ontology hijacking", ie, 
> imposing an extra constraint on a vocabulary item that is not under 
> the control of this group. This should not be done.
> There are two possibilities:
>  1. This is an editorial oversight and it should say |hasPolicy
>     subPropertyOf dct:license|.
>  2. This was the intention, but that should, in fact, be removed.
> (No. 1 makes sense to me.)
> A further question is either of those steps are taken, does that 
> invalidate any of the implementations, i.e., does any of the 
> implementations really make use of those terms? What about test cases? 
> Obviously, the question is whether this is a substantive change or a 
> honest but harmless mistake...
> (This question came up during the PR Transition discussion with the 
> Director.)
> —
> You are receiving this because you were assigned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <>, or mute the thread 
> <>.

Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel
D3205 - Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, Spain
Tel. (+34) 91336 3672
Skype: vroddon3

GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 12:20:51 UTC