- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:44:23 -0400
- To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@deri.org>
- CC: Erich Gombocz <egombocz@io-informatics.com>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Andrea, On 03/17/2013 10:14 AM, Andrea Splendiani wrote: > P.S.: Maybe there is a natural trade-off between precision and > communication. I don't know about that, but there *is* a natural trade-off between precision and reusability: the tighter something is defined, the less reusable it is. (More properties create more constraints.) The trick is to precisely specify the *right* properties for a given purpose -- to make the resource useful -- and leave everything else loose, to enable as much reuse as possible. SKOS is an excellent example of this. It is loose and very reusable. Very specialized, precise ontologies can be very valuable, but in general they are less reusable. David
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 01:44:53 UTC