- From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:35:09 +0100
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
> It's worth distinguishing here between runtime use of OWL > reasoners over massive datasets, versus OWL as a > documentation standard. > > There is no reason at all to avoid use of OWL in documenting > your classes and properties if OWL usefully captures the > meaning of the terms. > > Asking eg. whether a property is considered a functional > property, or whether two classes are disjoint, is a useful > discipline for all RDF application developers. OWL provides > the modelling and terminological tools for doing this. > Developers shouldn't be discouraged from doing so by concerns > that larger data systems subsequently won't scale. Making use > of the OWL information is a largely separate problem... Indeed yes... Mind you maybe it would also be good practice for people doing owl:sameAs between datasets to make some simple links at the ontology level, run the merged ontologies through the reasoner and use that as a guide as to whether your owl:sameAs links will be valid. Of course this would rely on good quality ontologies, but OWL isn't really rocket science :) John . This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice. Thank you for your cooperation. Ordnance Survey Romsey Road Southampton SO16 4GU Tel: 08456 050505 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 12:35:46 UTC