-Original Message-
From: semantic-web-requ...@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-requ...@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Ian Davis
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:53 PM
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: Jiří Procházka; Toby Inkster; Michael Schneider; Linked Data
community; Semantic Web; Pat Hayes
Subject: Re: RDF
On 8 Jul 2010, at 22:06, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
Without knowing the definition of
Hi,
I agree with Pat in that case, that it would just be easier not to put
restrictions
in the abstract rdf syntax at all, instead of complicating things all over
the place.
There are pragmatic reasons why sentences such as
http://bblfish.net/#hjs name Henry .
are not going to be
On 9 Jul 2010, at 09:29, Bernhard Schandl wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pat in that case, that it would just be easier not to put
restrictions
in the abstract rdf syntax at all, instead of complicating things all over
the place.
There are pragmatic reasons why sentences such as
On 9 Jul 2010, at 11:42, Jakub Kotowski wrote:
Henry Story schrieb:
On 9 Jul 2010, at 09:29, Bernhard Schandl wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pat in that case, that it would just be easier not to put
restrictions
in the abstract rdf syntax at all, instead of complicating things all over
the
Henry Story schrieb:
On 9 Jul 2010, at 11:42, Jakub Kotowski wrote:
Henry Story schrieb:
On 9 Jul 2010, at 09:29, Bernhard Schandl wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Pat in that case, that it would just be easier not to put
restrictions
in the abstract rdf syntax at all, instead of complicating
On 9 Jul 2010, at 13:25, Jakub Kotowski wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
No need then for any hijacking, that's just such a 70ies thing [1].
You could just follow your nose by dereferencing the namespace, or
the literal type to get the meaning. We'd be back to linked data,
but now with
On Jul 7, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:11:19 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
The world doesn't have facts like that in it. Classes and properties
are intellectual constructs, not the stuff of reality. Hell, if a
particle can be a wave, then surely a class
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to
conclude that foaf:Person is not a property. However, even without
knowing the definition of a literal, it
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than
not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic
specification, which would have to keep track of this
'meaninglessness'.
Why would tools need to
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk wrote:
Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to
conclude that foaf:Person is not a
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than
not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic
specification, which would have to keep track of
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 -0400, Adrian Walker wrote:
Hi Pat,
You wrote...
..how do we know, given some RDF, what semantic extensions are
appropriately to be used when interpreting it? That is a VERY good
question. This is something that RDF2 could most usefully tackle,...
A fairly
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:11:19 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
The world doesn't have facts like that in it. Classes and properties
are intellectual constructs, not the stuff of reality. Hell, if a
particle can be a wave, then surely a class can be a property.
Anyway, RDF doesn't make
On 07/06/2010 11:05 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
[snipped]
In case of a) I don't have cleared up my thoughts yet, but generally I
would like to know:
How are semantic extensions to work together in automated system?
Well, the semantics always
a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is valid RDF and even valid under RDFS semantic extension.
Maybe OWL says something about disjointness of RDF properties and classes
URI can be many things.
I think there are issues about RDF extensibility which haven't been
solved and they concern
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
So, if
:s lit :o .
must not have a semantic meaning, what about
lit rdf:type rdf:Property .
? As, according to what
2010/7/6 Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The
same as the following is a false statement:
foaf:Person a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is valid RDF and even valid
Dan Brickley wrote:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The
same as the following is a false statement:
foaf:Person a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is
is a false statement:
foaf:Person a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is valid RDF and even valid under RDFS semantic
extension.
Maybe OWL says something about disjointness of RDF properties and
classes
URI can be many things.
I think there are issues about RDF
On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:03 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
So, if
:s lit :o .
must not have a semantic meaning, what about
lit
21 matches
Mail list logo
