[foaf-dev] works relation

Story Henry henry.story at bblfish.net
Fri Feb 5 20:43:21 CET 2010


On 5 Feb 2010, at 20:41, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> 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 :-)

yes, of course we will need that. Reasoning is just more complex on the linked data web than in closed environments. But still I'd avoid ontologies that are obviously broken. I may just make a copy of that one, fix it, and put it on my server.

Henry


More information about the foaf-dev mailing list