[rdfweb-dev] Re: licence for Ontologies
danny.ayers at gmail.com
Wed Oct 27 18:49:43 UTC 2004
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:39:11 -0400, Ron Alford <ronwalf at umd.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure what the big deal is about alternate versions of Ontologies.
> If you take the straight foaf ontology and apply it to Live Journal's
> data, you will get tons of false inferences (in the real life sense,
> anyways). They are, by default, using an unpublished and distinct
> version of Foaf.
Using a distinct version leads to tons of false inferences..errm, well
isn't that exactly the problem?
> In my own copy of Foaf, I've been tempted to model Organizations as a
> subclass of Group. This would allow me to do membership and other
> things that are beneficial to what I'm trying to express.
Sure, but that could be done using ron:Organizations couldn't it?
> Taken together, the axioms in the ontology form rules for expressing the
> implicit. My use of foaf:Organization is one way of several to express
> that I'm talking about the same thing, but disagreeing on the
> definition. See wikipedia for some examples of disagreement on
> definitions. Do we expect the semantic web to be any different?
Ok, but isn't it preferable to lean towards the consistent wherever possible?
> My instance data specifically imports this copy of foaf, so that
> reasoners know exactly what rules I'm following, and can classify
> > Things could get complicated if they introduced assertions that led to
> > inconsistencies with the 'official' schema (in human or logical
> > terms). Say someone wants to say "John knows Rioja", and add the
> > statement:
> > foaf:knows rdfs:range vin:Wine
> Does this somehow corrupt the original foaf? No, because the original
> ontology at it's published and findable location is still intact. It
> boils down to a problem of contexts, and if you don't keep context in
> mind when working on the web, you're sunk before you even begin.
I don't disagree, but I also don't think it's good to encourage
unnecessary partitions in the data.
> > Whether anything in human law, copyright or whatever, may be useful in
> > encouraging consistency, I don't know.
> Consistency is already heavily tilted towards the owner of the URI.
> However, trying to mandate definitions in RDF seems futile and
> aggravating. to me.
Hmm, mandate definitions? Like specifications?
Does foaf need specific permission in order to
> subclass foaf:Person?
> What if want to express the ontology in RuleML, DAML, First order logic,
> OWL with E-connections, etc?
If you want interoperability, then you would also want consistency,
whatever representation you're using.
More information about the foaf-dev