On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique
identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular
instance of "abc" and not all literals "abc". Wouldn't the latter
treatment make literals-as-subjects less appealing?
Hmm. Im not sure what this means. Each literal has its own identity,
in a sense, but what the literal refers to is the same in each case:
every occurrence of "23"^^xsd:number must refer to twenty-three. And
since this (the number, not the literal) is what the literal refers
to, and so what the RDF which uses the literal is talking about, why
does it matter which literal you use to refer to it with?
Maybe what you really need to do is to reify the literal and then talk
about that. Then your notion of this literal vs. that literal does
make sense, but it bears on the semantics of reification in RDF (or
whatever finally takes its place in some future incarnation.)
Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generation relational
database and think that RDF could be sold to many people this way
(there is possibly are larger audience for this than for ontologies,
reasoning, etc.). Especially considering how No-SQL is currently
taking off. This part needs some love and seems to suffer from the
almost exclusive focus on semantics.
Fair enough. I guess Im not sure how this next-generation-RDB usage
fits with the RDF semantics, but I'd be interested in pursuing this
further. Does this RDF/RDB++ vision provide any guidance towards what
RDF is supposed to, like, mean? Pointers?
Pat Hayes
Axel
On Jun 30, 2010, at 21:52 , David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote:
[ . . . ]
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.
I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a
no-
brainer.
I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I
was
surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against*
having
literals as subjects. A straw poll showed that of those at the
workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group
charter include literals as subjects:
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-rdfn-minutes.html
Charter MUST include: 0
Charter SHOULD include: 1
Charter MAY include: 6
Charter MUST NOT include: 12
Readers, please note that this was a non-binding, informative STRAW
POLL
ONLY -- not a vote.
Pat, I wish you had been there. ;)
David
(BTW, it would also immediately solve the 'bugs in the RDF
rules' problem.) These arguments against it are nonsensical. The
REAL
argument against it is that it will mess up OWL-DL, or at any rate
it
*might* mess up OWL-DL.
The Description Logic police are still in charge:-)
Pat
Best,
Nathan
------------------------------------------------------------
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
--
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/
Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
http://hypergraphs.de/
:: Hyena: connected information manager, free at hypergraphs.de/
hyena/ ::
------------------------------------------------------------
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
