Re: [foaf-dev] works relation
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" <at> 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." <at> 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.