- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:13:10 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Dan Brickley a écrit : > 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. Why would you recommend against it? Would not a good practice be to simply separate in two RDF graphs - "intensional" axioms, those representing the meaning of the terms and that should be assumed by people reusing the vocabulary - "extensional" axioms, those representing properties/constraints of the dataset, that should be used to check its consistency/completeness. Depending on their need, people would only import the first graph, or both of them... pa
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 15:13:53 UTC