- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:16:20 +0200
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 10/26/05, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote: > >>>This seems to work quite well for the age (in years) of persons. > >>>However, this does not work for, for example, the age of particles in a > >>>particle accelerator. > >>> > > This is a good point. There certainly may be subtle (or not-so-subtle!) > distinctions between the semantics of a general concept like "age" as > applied to different kinds of things. However, remember that in RDFS > you're not really defining *the* "age" property, but a *particular* > "age" property, identified by a URI. Best practices for modeling is a > subject for separate (and lengthy!) discussion, but I could certainly > see some possible justification for a model having, rather than one > property with different class-based constraints, two different > properties (say foo:age and bar:age, perhaps as subproperties of a more > general one) for this example. In that case, different range > constraints on the two properties might be appropriate. However, YMMV. > In any event, I think we agree that we want to be able to say exactly > what we mean, without the language somehow forcing us to say more or > less than that! A little tangential question, do you think this suggests that the "OntoWorker" kind of approach makes more sense, disposing of scruffiness like literals and (XSD-styled) datatypes...or does the pragmatic value of those things clearly outweigh having a more easily manageable formal model? Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 21:16:42 UTC