+1
/Lars
> +1
>
> Antoine
>
> On 1/24/15 3:07 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> > It would be great if others on this list could chime in with agreement
> > or disagreement on Karen's position so that she can represent the
> > opinion of this group with confidence. My own view:
> >
> > +1 completely agree re: "if you accept closed world OWL then you might
> > as well throw out RDF/RDFS/OWL standards altogether".
> >
> > I completely agree that overloading RDF/OWL concepts risks both
> > confusion and the erosion of meaning. I do not buy the argument that
> > overloading existing terms is easier than learning a new set of terms.
> > On the contrary, learning new terms sounds easier to me than trying to
> > get one's head around subtle distinctions between variant meanings of
> > existing terms.
> >
> > As Danbri likes to say, what people do in the privacy of their own
> > databases is their own affair. People can choose to interpret OWL for
> > their own purposes with CWA. It would IMO be very counterproductive
> > for W3C to specify alternative global semantics for OWL.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:58:09AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >> On 1/23/15 11:08 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >>> Beyond the name, grounding a language which will be mostly use for
> >>> validation in closed worlds, upon RDFS which relies on the open world
> >>> assumption, might be at risk of muddling those waters a bit more.
> >>
> >> Bernard - exactly.
> >>
> >> This is indeed one of the underlying issues that the group has not
> >> yet resolved. Some members of the group are advocates of the
> >> closed-world interpretation of OWL (e.g. ICV/Stardog), so some
> >> closed-world re-use of RDF/S seems mild in comparison. The response
> >> from these people to those who prefer something entirely distinct
> >> from RDF and OWL is that it requires learning an entirely new set of
> >> terms. Those opposed to over-loading cite potential confusion and
> >> erosion of meaning.
> >>
> >> So we have the "over-loaders/less learning curve" vs. the
> >> "no-over-loaders/don't muddy the water" philosophies going
> >> face-to-face.
> >>
> >> If DCMI has a preferred position, we should put it forth, as members
> >> of the W3C working group. My own gut tells me that overloading is
> >> quite dangerous, but I don't know how others feel. This is an
> >> appropriate architectural discussion, I would think.
> >>
> >> kc
> >> p.s. To reveal my personal view without holding back, if you accept
> >> closed world OWL then you might as well throw out RDF/RDFS/OWL
> >> standards altogether and just let everyone make up rules for
> >> whatever suits them best. But I haven't said this in the W3C group.
> >
|