[foaf-dev] works relation

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Fri Feb 5 20:41:09 CET 2010


Story Henry wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:31, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>   
>>> yes, except that this ontology is pretty crap. 
>>> I have pointed out a few years ago that it does not make sense, and I have seen no action to improve it. Take just for exampel:
>>>
>>> <wouldLikeToKnow>     a rdf:Property;
>>>         :domain <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>>         :isDefinedBy <>;
>>>         :label "would like to now"@en;
>>>         :range <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person>;
>>>         :subPropertyOf <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows>;
>>>         skos:definition "A person whom this person would desire to know more closely."@en .
>>>
>>> from this if you wouldLikeToKnow someone, then you know them.
>>> Which is nonsensical. So I wouldLikeToKnow SamanthaFox, therefore I know her! 
>>>  
>>>       
>> Okay, scrap that relation.
>>
>> I focused on the employment terms, albeit for my own selfish purposes i.e., verifying new reasoner features in Virtuoso  :-)
>>     
>
> Don't get me wrong. I like the names of all those relations, but until they are a bit surer they should remove any of the relations that have entailment consequences. But they seem completely unresponsive to feedback, as far as I can see... So they should be avoided.
>   
Sure, that why "reasoning act" should be subjective re. SPARQL.

We have context rules that are optionally associated with SPARQL queries 
via compiler pragmas :-)

Kingsley
> Henry
>
>   
>> Kingsley
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter: kidehen 







More information about the foaf-dev mailing list