At the beginning of SMW development, the idea was that, to make everyone happy, anyone could create any property that they want and give it whatever meaning they want in their wiki. That's great for making everyone feel included (even the wiki users who just want to jump in without thinking about what they are doing).
But as soon as SMW has to do inference, even the basic inference for transitive and inverse properties, then this requires not only a syntax, but also a semantics. Some people don't like (or don't understand) the semantics developed for OWL, but at least it is well-defined. Does SMW use the semantics defined for RDF/OWL by default? If a wiki user wants a different semantics (for what defines equivalent topics, etc.) does SMW support a language for them to define it (pretty difficult)? You see where I'm going with this question. Doesn't SMW need to get past the "anything goes" and officially commit to some well-developed semantics such as OWL? - Jeff Markus Krötzsch wrote: > Yes, the only possible *semantically distinct* inverse is P (which is always > equal to R in this example). But some wiki user can still make two distinct > property pages for P and R, and SMW then has to figure out that these are > equivalent *for the current information on inverses*. If the > inverse-assertions in the wiki change, then statements for P and R may again > become different from each other, so SMW would also have to keep them > separate in some sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
