On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:04:10AM +1000, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Yet, there used to be a notion of a Semantic Web, in which people
> were able to publish ontologies together with shared semantics. On
> this list and also the WG it seems that this has come out of
> fashion, and everyone seems "obsessed" with the ability to violate
> the published semantics.
Hi Holger,
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that people on
this list want to violate published semantics??
> Plus there are many
> applications in which ontologies are custom-built anyway, and having
> a class-based model is simply the best-established practice for
> those use cases. Why reinvent the wheel?
That's fine, but my sense of the rough consensus on this list is that we
agree with Corey when he says, "the more absolute notion that class
membership is the only trigger or that classes and shapes are the same
construct seems to unnecessarily narrow the scope in which ldom will be
useful".
Tom
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|