Re: rdfs:seeAlso Re: Semantic E-mail

The semantics of OWL can be safely layered on RDFS; if a tool can't use 
them, it doesn't matter. I think an acceptable solution for your 
problem would be to:
- use another schema, if you can see its clear popularity (e.g. DC, 
FOAF). Something like 'creator', for instance, is a prime candidate for 
this.
- use your own, and put OWL equivalences to any other schema which 
matches the semantics, if there's no clear choice. You can even do this 
for multiple versions of other schema.

RDFS-aware tools will see your properties. OWL-aware tools can use the 
additional relations to match up the ontologies where it is of benefit. 
I don't think there's a real way to do it in RDFS, apart from using 
subProperty relations, so use OWL.

You're right that seeAlso doesn't provide enough help in this 
situation; ontology 'similarity' is a vague concept.

Regards,
-Richard

On 10 Jul 2004, at 12:16, Laurian Gridinoc wrote:
> But how can I interpret the recommendation doesn't count; all it
> counts is the consensus on how a vocabulary can be constructed
> referring similar properties in other vocabularies rather than using
> them directly (mixing vocabularies) in order to promote partial
> understanding.
>
> I would like to mix vocabularies, but I won't know how to choose them
> -- I mean I would choose elements which semantics satisfies my needs,
> but how can I know that I'm not then `speaking' a dead language (ex. a
> forgotten draft, etc)?
>
> There is no popularity engine for schemas, and hoping that in the
> future there will be servers that will provide the vocabulary
> equivalence information is like hoping for link servers to happen.
>
> That's why I want to include in my vocabulary equivalence statements,
> I was hoping that it can be done in RDF Schema only, if there is not a
> solution (rdf:seeAlso) I'll climb the next step to OWL.
>
> I really don't know what would be the best approach.
>
> Thank you,
> -- 
> Laurian Gridinoc
> Chief Developer
> GRAPEFRUIT DESIGN
> www.gd.ro
>

Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 08:40:02 UTC