Joshua Shinavier Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web Jesse Weaver

Question is for the Presentation: Joshua Shinavier Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web
Question is asked by: Jesse Weaver
The Question is: Out of curiosity, why didn't the authors use OWL for their ontology? They model their own cardinality semantics which could be replaced (granted, with different usage) by standard OWL constructs. If you look at their ontology (http://www.argdf.org/source/ArgDF_Ontology.rdfs), it shows that they've also defined their own InverseProperty semantics. (As a side note, I was surprised to find so many syntactical errors in the RDF/XML snippets for a journal article.)

Question asked	Out of curiosity, why didn't the authors u … Out of curiosity, why didn't the authors use OWL for their ontology? They model their own cardinality semantics which could be replaced (granted, with different usage) by standard OWL constructs. If you look at their ontology (http://www.argdf.org/source/ArgDF_Ontology.rdfs), it shows that they've also defined their own InverseProperty semantics. (As a side note, I was surprised to find so many syntactical errors in the RDF/XML snippets for a journal article.) e RDF/XML snippets for a journal article.)
Question asked by	Jesse Weaver +
Question for the Presentation	Joshua Shinavier Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web +