Nathan wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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.
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.
Surely that's Linked Data or a variant of EAV, not RDF - why should
the core level data model be restricted so that it can't be used to
say simple things like { 1 x:lessThan 2 ) ?
Yes, that's the context of my response.
I (biases on my sleeve) believe that local RDF (as per the past) has
limited value.
Moreover, { :a :b "something" } == { "something" [owl:inverseOf :b] :a }
aside: you know I fully grok all the benefits of linked data and am a
huge proponent, but rdf at it's core isn't linked data and saying:
{ x:London rdfs:label "London" }
is the same as saying
{ "London" is rdfs:label of x:London }
afaik, directionality doesn't come in to it.
Yes, RDF != Linked Data. But ironically, it might take this entire
debate to fix that perception bug :-)
Best,
Nathan
please do correct me if I'm wrong
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
