Right, but we're talking here about validation, not use of RDF in the
open world.
kc
On 12/13/14 1:26 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> As domain and range inferencing is part of the very very basic inferencing mechanism of RDFS this seemed to me as it should / could be interesting for the DCMI community.
> I'm not that deep in the use cases.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
>
>
> Thomas, so far I haven't seen anything in our use cases that refers to
> domain and range inferencing. Let me know if I missed that.
>
> kc
>
> On 12/12/14 9:49 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
>> You may also consider property domain and range inferencing.
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> W3C is starting to fill in pages with requirements. In this page, I try
>> to explain the DC approach to inferencing. Please let me know if you
>> think I got it wrong.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-1:_What_inferencing_can_or_must_be_used#DC_Application_Profiles
>>
>> Thinking it over, it does occur to me that for the few cases that we
>> have that look at sub/super we could create a requirement that does not
>> have to read the ontology, such that
>>
>> if [specific title] and [dc:title] use [specific title]
>>
>> (I may have the backward from the actual case.)
>>
>> It seems to me that, especially for profiles using a mix of ontologies,
>> having to have access to all of the ontologies in order to do validation
>> could be a huge burden.
>>
>> kc
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|