Re: OWL-DL and linked data

Hi Andrew
> 2008/6/10 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>:
>   
>> Andrew
>>
>> I see this as yet another aspect of the fact that the current semantic
>> languages pile lacks a way to express the general notion of coreference. The
>> URI  a:bar, published properly as linked data with RDF description, has the
>> same referent as b:foo, which identifies a plain vanilla HTML page, but a
>> stable and authoritative one.  It's been discussed already many times that
>> we lack something between owl:sameAs (too strong) and rdfs:seeAlso (too
>> weak). Your problem is quite the same. rdfs:isDefinedBy limits you to a
>> certain representation framework (RDF).
>>     
>
> In these previous discussions has it been mentioned that these
> vocabularies seem to be excluding definitional resources?  Is linking
> data supposed to include other representations?  
Clearly enough, the linked data space as it stands restricts itself to 
RDF data. Other representations seem out of scope, but are welcome to be 
migrated or otherwise wrapped in RDF..
> I mean other languages like Topic Maps or English should be part of idea of linked
> data 
Topic maps I can understand. English? What do you mean exactly by that.
> or is it RDF/RDFS only?  Is it suppose to include OWL-DL? 
I guess so. Some OWL-DL ontologies are part of the linked data space. 
But it's an open world, so even if some data are published in 
conformance with a DL ontology, the graph closure you get by adding 
linked data is not necessarily DL ...
> It almost doesn't matter that they're dead ends now - surely that will
> change over time as we convert Topic Maps, English or whatever into
> RDF.  I'm not sure about the RDFS and OWL differences.
>
> If it has been discussed before is there a reference?
>   
Not exactly in the way you set the issue, AFAIK.

Bernard
>   
>> I was yesterday updating the data at http://www.lingvoj.org, and thought
>> again that I had not the proper expressivity to link e.g.,
>> http://www.lingvoj.org/lang/da to more authoritative but not RDF-friendly
>> URIs like http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=dan or
>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=dan (this one seems to be
>> down when I write).
>>
>> We can wish and be proactive towards their publishers to have such resources
>> published as linked data, but meanwhile we are stuck.
>> More and more I think that adding such expressivity to the langauge pile is
>> badly needed. We need RDFSemiotics to become operational.
>> See: http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFSemiotics
>>
>>     
>
> This seems to follow my ideas quite closely (I have read it so maybe
> this is where I got it from).  Making it an object property is
> definitely something I've been thinking about.  But the link seems
> clearly to be an annotation property not an object property.  I guess
> it can be a property of the object but it doesn't seem necessarily
> part of it - that is it can be safely ignored - it's an optional extra
> like rdfs:seeAlso and rdfs:isDefinedBy.
>
>
>
>   

-- 

*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 13:39:58 UTC