Subtyping existing terms or just using them...

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:08:42 +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> What are the arguments for or against each of the following approaches?
>
> 1. Sub classing External Vocabulary
> Create EARL vocabulary that are subclasses of existing vocabulary...
>
> 2. Equality with External Vocabulary
> Create EARL vocabulary and use OWL constraints to define equality with  
> existing vocabulary...

The first approach relies on tools understanding RDFS inferencing to pick  
up that what we are talking about is related to the thing we are  
subtyping. The second relies on implementing a couple of OWL properties.

They also mean slightly different things, and we should be using something  
that means what we want. I don't see a lot of point in the second approach  
- if our idea of a Person is the same as some existing and well-known idea  
of a Person (let's say FOAF, not to be too hypothetical) then we can make  
a copy of it and wait for people to implement the OWL properties to  
realise that this is something that they already know about, or we can  
just use FOAF, so there is nothing to wait for. Either way, when they  
figure out we are talking about the same kind of thing (a Person) they can  
relate earl Assertions with articles written by, or about, the Assertor  
(as an example taken off the top of my head).

If our idea of a Person has some specific characteristic that makes it  
different from FOAF's idea of a Person (which is pretty much just a  
person) then it makes sense to subclass. But I am not sure what the  
characteristics in question would be - so I don't see the use case.

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 11:12:51 UTC