- From: Stephen Rhoads <rhoadsnyc@mac.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 21:53:06 -0400
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
... that is the question. I am struggling over whether to use domain and range constraints in my ontology and could use some guidance. Over the past year, I have picked up on various utterances which would seem to allude to potential pitfalls in using global domain and range restrictions within the context of the Web. As far as I can tell, though, there is no formal documentation of the issue. Sounds like a job for the SWBP ... Some examples: [1] "Could a user of your schema wish to apply your predicates to some other classes of which you have not yet thought? If this is possible, range and domain constraints would seem inappropriate." [2] "The solution of using the DAML/OWL union construct comes closest to giving you what you want. However, the union construct is non-modular. If a user wants to extend a union domain by adding a new 'subdomain' to it, that requires modifying the original union definition. If this user is not the owner of the declaration that defines the union, then he/she is out of luck." [3] "Indeed, many people don't use any global domain restrictions. Part of this is (as you correctly mention) the open world assumption in OWL on the Semantic Web. Also, some reasoners behave badly inefficient if too many global restrictions are imposed on properties. Thus, local restrictions are probably the safest bet for many applications." --- Stephen [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Jan/0180.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Jan/0185.html [3] Holger Knublauch (protege-owl list)
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 21:53:14 UTC