- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:04:45 +0000
- To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, dbpedia-announcements@lists.sourceforge.net
Ian Davis a écrit : > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org > <mailto:timbl@w3.org>> wrote: > > > On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote: >> [...] >> I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range >> restrictions. Any thoughts? > > There are lots of uses for rand and domain. > > One is in the user interface -- if you for example link a a person > and a document, the system > can prompt you for a relationship which will include "is author of" > and "made" but won't include foaf:knows or is issue of. > > Similarly, when making a friend, one can us autocompletion on labels > which the current session knows about and simplify it by for example > removing all documents from a list of candidate foaf:knows friends. > > > Both these use cases require some OWL to say that documents aren't > people. I don't see these scenarios being feasible in the general case > because you'd need a complete description of the world in OWL, i.e. > you'd want to know about everything that can't possibly be a person. This is technically true. However, from a user interface point of view, it is reasonable to use the *explicit* statements as a guiding heuristic -- although it should be possible, with additional steps, to add a foaf:knows bewteen any two resources, even if one is not explicitly typed as a foaf:Person. pa
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:05:30 UTC