- From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 17:11:47 +0200
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
* [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