[foaf-dev] works relation
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 :-)
President & CEO
More information about the foaf-dev