On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org> wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however
it is
called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL:
# An rdf:List that loops around...
<#mylist> a rdf:List ;
rdf:first <#Alice> ;
rdf:next <#mylist> .
# A looping, branching mess...
<#anotherlist> a rdf:List ;
rdf:first <#anotherlist> ;
rdf:next <#anotherlist> .
They might be messy, but they are *possible* structures using
pointers, which is what the RDF vocabulary describes. Its just
about impossible to guarantee that messes can't happen when all
you are doing is describing structures in an open-world setting.
But I think the cure is to stop thinking that possible-messes are
a problem to be solved. So, there is dung in the road. Walk round
it.
Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general
discussion that's going on then?
For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked
data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } -
whereas I'd immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.
Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered
with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a
few simple notes on best practise for linked data etc.
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects"
have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne
by Descriptor Docs/Resources). An "Identifier" != Literal.
What ARE you talking about? You sound like someone reciting doctrine.
Literals in RDF are just as much 'identifiers' or 'names' as URIs are.
They identify their value, most clearly and emphatically. They denote
in exactly the same way that URIs denote. "23"^^xsd:number is about
as good an identification of the number twenty-three as you are ever
likely to get in any notational system since ancient Babylonia.
Pat Hayes
If you are in a situation where you can't or don't want to mint an
HTTP based Name, simply use a URN, it does the job.
Best,
Nathan
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web:
http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
