Re: Official OWL version outdated

Hi Holger,

On 5/18/2013 12:50 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
> On May 18, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Bo Ferri wrote:
>
>> Hi Holger,
>>
>> this looks pretty good so far. Thanks a lot for your engagement. However, I'm not sure whether your utilisation of rdf:Property and owl:unionOf ranges that include classes as well as datatypes are really possible. Albeit, from the OWL 2 specs [1] I can see that there are definitions for ObjectUnionOf and DataUnionOf, which are somehow separate from each other, or? For example rNews (e.g. [2]) makes use of object unionOfs and datatype unionOfs, but no mixing.
>
> Yes these problems (among others) caused me to remove the mixed properties in my first version. It is IMHO *very* unfortunate that the schema.org design uses such mixed properties and I hope this pattern will not be propagated further. Instead, new properties should be introduced for the string values. But given this pre-existing design, a compromise needs to be applied. And here the compromise is to use OWL Full over OWL DL.

Generally, I would like to see such mixed ranges. I just wasn't really 
sure whether this could be possible. However, when I interpret your 
comment correct, then it is really possible and valid.

>
>
>> Generally, you could add rdf:Property to all properties and rdfs:Class to all classes for "backward" compatibility (this is one of my personal preferences when modelling ontologies ;) ).
>
> I personally don't like having redundant triples in a file. Anyone can quite easily add those (either dynamically as "inference" or through a CONSTRUCT query) to their own copy of the schema file.

Yes, I know. However, I think that this should be part of the common 
mapping rather then the consumer has to do it on his/her own. Anyway, I 
think that this is only a minor issue that could be argued for both 
perspectives ;)

So I would really vote for your new proposal (with the object + datatype 
unionOf ranges and the utilisation of rdf:Property) and that this 
mapping should be publish at schema.org.

Cheers,


Bo

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 23:40:55 UTC