Dear all,
I know that the compatibility of FOAF with OWL DL has been discussed a
lot in the past (and still sometimes surfaces again). However, I'm
wondering, would it be reasonable to provide a DL version of FOAF in
complement of the official FOAF ontology?
More generally, wouldn't it be reasonable to provide alternative
versions of an ontology? Think of XHTML: there are three different XML
Schemas for XHTML [1]. One could imagine alternative versions like FOAF
(Full), FOAF-DL, FOAF-lite...
Anyway, I did it: I've made a FOAF-DL ontology which modifies the FOAF
ontology such that (1) it is in OWL 2 DL and (2) it maximally preserves
inferences of the original FOAF ontology [2].
Interestingly, FOAF-DL is an OWL 2 RL ontology (in a nutshell, OWL 2 RL
is a subset of OWL 2 DL with low computational complexity and that is
compatible with rule-based inference engine).
You may notice that there are strange annotation properties for this
ontology:
<owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://purl.org/az/foaf#";>
...
<yoda:preferredVersion rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
...
</owl:Ontology>
The Yoda vocabulary [3] is used to relate alternative versions of an
ontology. Here, it is said that there is a preferred version, which is
the official FOAF ontology.
Critiques to any of the previous comments are welcome.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1-schema/#schemas
[2] The FOAF-DL ontology. http://purl.org/az/foaf
[3] Yoda: A Vocabulary for Linking Alternative Specifications of a
Vocabulary. http://purl.org/NET/yoda
Regards,
--
Antoine Zimmermann
Post-doctoral researcher at:
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
IDA Business Park
Lower Dangan
Galway, Ireland
antoine.zimmerm...@deri.org
http://vmgal34.deri.ie/~antzim/
