On 30 June 2010 21:14, Pat Hayes <pha...@ihmc.us> wrote: > > 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. >
You can also do this: http://km.aifb.kit.edu/projects/numbers/web/n23 > > 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<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> >> 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 > > > > > > >