Dear All,
This is an interesting discussion:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2021May/0052.html
Whereas I agree, for our purposes, with the use of datatypes for
geometries, time etc., as we recommend,
I regard the discussion about Named Graphs as more complex. Curiously,
the arguments against Named Graphs seem to center around RDFS
statements, and not graphs of related particulars, so-called "material
facts".
For our purposes, i.e., for describing provenance of facts and
argumentation about facts, I regard the Named Graph mechanism as a
superior solution, as long as the described facts are indeed possible
states of affairs to be taken into account in the same world in which
the graph content creation is described.
For categorical and counterfactual statements, I think the idea of a
datatype is not bad. It can be regarded as a content model of an
information object, without committing to a believe about it.
All the best,
Martin
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
