Re: owl:sameAs (Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April))

* [2011-04-07 15:24:29 +0200] Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> écrit:

] may be I did open this can of worm with owl:inverseOf, I'm sorry about
] that...

Can of worms indeed :P

] The point here is not to improve/augment RDFS, IMHO. It is to move into
] plain RDF(S) a feature of OWL that is intensively used by people who,
] otherwise, do not rely (heavily) on OWL -- namely, the linked data
] community.
] 
] Improving RDFS is a completely different matter (and probably out of
] scope for the group, if I read the charter correctly). However, my gut
] feeling is that introducing contradictions in RDFS would have much
] bigger impacts than introducing equality... (just an intuition, though)

Certainly agree that it is out of scope for the group. I only
mentioned it because it seemed closely related to things that I was
thinking about. One of my motivations was/is to find a use for
reasoning that was common enough to become compelling - considering
that RDF is reasonably widely used a publishing format but almost
nobody actually uses inferencing. So how can we use logic to help
improve the quality of published RDF? By finding bugs, where "bug"
usually means "entails a contradiction". That said, I wouldn't
necessarily argue for moving owl:disjointFrom into RDFS (is bigger
impact a good or a bad thing?) nor owl:sameAs (because it is misused
almost to the point of meaninglessness in practice), but would support
including owl:inverseOf because it seems in a hand-wavy way to belong
to the same class of predicates that are already in RDFS.

Cheers,
-w
-- 
William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 15:12:12 UTC