Re: AW: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Chris Bizer a écrit :
> I really like Hugh's idea of having a loose schema in general and add
> additional constraints as comments/optional constraints to the schema, so
> that applications can decide whether they want to use them or not. But this
> is sadly not supported by the RDF standards.

A solution could be to use new properties, e.g. dbpedia:domain and
dbpedia:range, that would be declared *super-properties* of their rdfs:
counterpart.

They would not imply anything from the point of view of a standard RDFS
or OWL processor (assuming that the later is not disturbed too much with
the higher order super-property axiom...).

A dbpedia aware processor, however, could decide to "promote" those
relations to standard rdfs domain and range, hence perform some
inference with them.

Does that make sense?

  pa

> 
> So, I'm still a bit undecided about leaving or removing the ranges and
> domains. Maybe leave them, as they are likely not harmful and might be
> useful for some use cases?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org]
>> Im Auftrag von Dan Brickley
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. November 2008 14:09
>> An: Pierre-Antoine Champin
>> Cc: Paul Gearon; Semantic Web
>> Betreff: Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release,
>> including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase
>>
>>
>> Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>>> Paul Gearon a écrit :
>>>> While I'm here, I also noticed Tim Finin referring to "domain and
>> range
>>>> constraints". Personally, I don't see the word "constraint" as an
>>>> appropriate description, since rdfs:domain and rdfs:range are not
>>>> constraining in any way.
>>> They are constraining the set of interpretations that are models of
>> your
>>> knowledge base. Namely, you constrain Fido to be a person...
>>>
>>> But I grant you this is not exactly what most people expect from the
>>> term "constraint"... I also had to do the kind of explainations you
>>> describe...
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>>
>> In earlier (1998ish) versions of RDFS we called them 'constraint
>> resources' (with the anticipation of using that concept to flag up new
>> constructs from anticipated developments like DAML+OIL and OWL). This
>> didn't really work, because anything that had a solid meaning was a
>> constraint in this sense, so we removed that wording.
>>
>> This is a very interesting discussion, wish I had time this week to
>> jump
>> in further.
>>
>> I do recommend against using RDFS/OWL to express application/dataset
>> constraints, while recognising that there's a real need for recording
>> them in machine-friendly form. In the Dublin Core world, this topic is
>> often discussed in terms of "application profiles", meaning that we
>> want
>> to say things about likely and expected data patterns, rather than
>> doing
>> what RDFS/OWL does and merely offering machine dictionary definitions
>> of
>> terms.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> http://danbri.org/
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 15:10:17 UTC