- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:28:54 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Jul 29, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 29 Jul 2008, at 15:23, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> On 29 Jul 2008, at 15:08, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >> >>> Making something like pub:name a subProperty of rdfs:label is >>> essential >>> for the Tabulator for example to know it can use names as labels >>> in the UI. So please do it >> >> I would suggest that Tabulator find a better way. E.g., something >> Fresnelish. For many reasons. I.e., I would recommend this even if subpropertying rdfs:label becomes legit OWL DL. > Let me see. Try *thinking* next time. > 1. The RDF working group defines RDF and RDFS, including the useful > utility properties rdfs:label, rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso and > rdfs:isDefinedBy. Er...to say that they "defined" them is stretching things a bit. E.g., """(rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy and rdfs:label are included here because some constraints which apply to their use can be stated using rdfs:domain, rdfs:range and rdfs:subPropertyOf. Other than this, the formal semantics does not assign them any particular meanings.)""" > 2. RDF people start to use these properties in conformance with the > specs. Also stretching things a bit. > 3. While defining OWL-DL, the OWL WG introduces rather arbitrary > restriction on all these properties. It's not actually arbitrary per se, but I do understand that technical considerations are a lost cause on you. > 4. OWL people ask RDF people to stop subclassing these properties > in order to meet the restrictions imposed by OWL-DL. Do whatever you want. > This doesn't make any sense to me. Many things don't, I see. I notice you elided the fact that you have a rather ridiculously constrained notion of the "open web". There's no *need* to be hostile, after all. (And yes, you started the tone in the gutter in the face of non-guttered tone.) > The OWL WG blundered when they redeclared these properties as > annotation properties. That part is quite sensible, actually. The design of RDF is problematic in several ways not least in mixing domain modeling and annotative stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if these choices don't affect you. Good for you. I even understand that you don't care about people for whom it matters. Also good for you. > [snip] >>> Presumably OWL DL systems can be built to ignore the >>> rdfs:subClassOf fact when they do OWL-DL reasoning on the data. > > +1. You broke it, you fix it. Thanks for playing. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 23:29:37 UTC