On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Bernhard Schandl < bernhard.scha...@univie.ac.at> wrote:
> Instead of changing the original FOAF ontology (which only the owners of > the FOAF namespace can do), I would suggest that you add another property > for your application and define it as super-property of foaf:holdsAccount, > > foaf:holdsAccount rdfs:subPropertyOf ex:holdsAccount . > > and use ex:holdsAccount instead of foaf:holdsAccount. However whenever you > encounter a foaf:holdsAccount you can treat it as instance of > ex:holdsAccount. > That solves it. The solution came to me this morning as I was waking up, but you beat me to it :-) > > If you do not allow ontology developers to define restrictions on the > classes and properties they define, then we end up with plain collections of > terms, but without the possibility to derive useful conclusions from the > data. However to build meaningful applications we need constraints on the > data, and if you do not need these constraints you have two options: either > do not use inference, or define your own (unrestricted) vocabulary and link > it to the . > > Best, Bernhard > That is a really good was of describing. Thanks for your insights! Respectively, Tim Lebo