+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.
>
|