Hello Stian,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:54:33AM +, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
So if you tell the user his information is just RDF, but neglect to mention
and then some, he could wrongfully think that his list of say preferred
president has its order preserved in any exposed RDF.
Then
Hello Paul,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:19:06PM +0100, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Another case is where there really is a total ordering. For instance, the
authors of a scientific paper might get excited if you list them in the
wrong order. One weird old trick for this is RDF containers,
On 19 Feb 2015 21:42, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
No, this is dangerous and is hiding the truth.
What?
(Just to clarify my view, obviously you know this :) )
That RDF Triples are not ordered in an RDF Graph. They might be ordered in
something else, but that is not part of
Sorry, now I forgot my strawman! Too late on a Friday..
So say the user of an triple-order-preserving UI says:
document prov:wasAttributedTo :alice, :charlie, :bob.
.. And consider the order important because Bob didn't contribute as much
to the document as Alice and Charlie.
In that case the
On 2/20/15 1:19 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
Hi Stian,
Thanks for the mention :)
Graham Klyne's Annalist is perhaps not quite what you are thinking of
(I don't think it can connect to an arbitrary SPARQL endpoint), but I
would consider it as falling under a similar category, as you have a
user
This is what I meant in my earlier message when touching on collection.
If the order of the resources (let's stick with foaf:Person) matter, then
the property used should not have a range of (only) foaf:Person.
So say
One problem is that say in OWL you don't really have an easy way to type
If you don't like double housekeeping (most programmers know the pitfalls
here), then using OWL or inference rules you can also infer attendance from
the arrival events.
Are most programmers who work for the Human Resources Department ignorant or
just really scary ?
It's Friday. Get thee to
I find it funny that people on this list and semweb lists in general
like discussing abstractions, ideas, desires, prejudices etc.
However when a concrete example is shown, which solves the issue
discussed or at least comes close to that, it receives no response.
So please continue discussing
On 2/20/15 4:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
On 19 Feb 2015 21:42, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com
mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
No, this is dangerous and is hiding the truth.
What?
(Just to clarify my view, obviously you know this :) )
That RDF Triples are not ordered
So some thoughts here.
OWL, so far as inference is concerned, is a failure and it is time to
move on. It is like RDF/XML.
As a way of documenting types and properties it is tolerable. If I write
down something in production rules I can generally explain to an average
joe what they mean. If
On 2/20/15 10:23 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
I find it funny that people on this list and semweb lists in general
like discussing abstractions, ideas, desires, prejudices etc.
That's because dog-fooding hasn't yet become second nature, across the
aforementioned communities. Don't give up,
Hello Martynas,
sorry! You mean this one?
http://linkeddatahub.com/ldh?mode=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphity.org%2Fgc%23EditMode
Nice! Looks like a template but you still may have the triple object ordering
problem. Do you? If yes, how did you address it?
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
On Fri, Feb 20,
On 2/20/15 10:09 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
So some thoughts here.
OWL, so far as inference is concerned, is a failure and it is time
to move on. It is like RDF/XML.
I think that's a little too generic a comment. Describing the nature of
relations using relations is vital.
Not all of OWL is
On Feb 20, 2015, at 2:42 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Paul,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:19:06PM +0100, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Another case is where there really is a total ordering. For instance, the
authors of a scientific paper might get excited if you
On 2/20/15 12:04 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
Hey Michael,
this one indeed.
The layout is generated with XSLT from RDF/XML. The triples are
grouped by resources.
Not to criticize, but to seek clarity:
What does the term resources refer to, in your usage context?
In a world of Relations
Hi All,
The infrastructure used in [1,2] to get transparency and auditability may
be of interest for this discussion.
Thanks for comments, -- Adrian
[1]
www.astd.org/Publications/Magazines/The-Public-Manager/Archives/2013/Fall/Social-Knowledge-Transfer-Using-Executable-English
[2]
Hi All,
The infrastructure used in [1,2] to get transparency and auditability may
be of interest for this discussion.
Thanks for comments, -- Adrian
[1]
www.astd.org/Publications/Magazines/The-Public-Manager/Archives/2013/Fall/Social-Knowledge-Transfer-Using-Executable-English
[2]
Hi Stian,
Thanks for the mention :)
Graham Klyne's Annalist is perhaps not quite what you are thinking of
(I don't think it can connect to an arbitrary SPARQL endpoint), but I
would consider it as falling under a similar category, as you have a
user interface to define record types and forms,
Pat,
so far as corporation is a person that is what we have foaf:Agent
for. A corporation can sign contracts and be an endpoint for communication
and payments the same as a person so to model the world of law, business,
finance and stuff that is a very real thing.
If you take that idea
http://smartcity.linkeddata.es/LD4SC/
*Registration deadline: 15th March*
The 1st Summer School on Smart Cities and Linked Open Data (LD4SC-15)
will be held from June 7th to 12th 2015 at Residencia Lucas Olazábal of
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid in Cercedilla, a municipality of the
Hello Pat,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:45:12AM -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
Another simpler example would be property rdfs:range foaf:Person.
http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person says that Something is a Person if
it
is a person. How can an RDF container of several persons be a person?
21 matches
Mail list logo
