| Question asked
|
Section 5.2 points out that one limitation … Section 5.2 points out that one limitation of using RDFS for modeling is the lack of support for disjointedness (in defining "all classes of edges and nodes). Is there any reason why the authors might have chosen only to use RDFS when OWL would allow the use of disjoint declarations as well as using proper restrictions on the domain and range of properties (for example, disallowing edges between I-nodes). I find this choice particularly confusing since the sample RDF in section 5.2 uses a predicate a:minCardinality which presumably refers to the OWL term (but isn't discussed afaik). Moreover, the use of RQL (mentioned in section 6.2) as an RDF query language in a paper published in 2007 is rather surprising, and would seem to suggest that this work is quite a bit more dated than the publication date would indicate. Do you think the model described would benefit much from the use of more recent (read: appropriate) technologies such as OWL (and perhaps SPARQL), or are they mostly irrelevant implementation details? mostly irrelevant implementation details?
|
