On 3/31/12 1:18 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 3/31/12 9:01 AM, Tore Eriksson wrote:On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:09 AM, David Booth<[email protected]> wrote:The basic requirements behind issue-57 and the httpRange-14 rework are:1. There must be a standard, algorithmic way for a client, given a target URI, to find the URI owner's implicit or explicit *definition* for that URI. 2. The URI owner must be able to provide an arbitrarily detailed definition (though not necessarily for a URI of every possible syntactic form). 3. In the case where a URI owner has served a page with no explicit URI definition, the algorithm must specify an implicit definition (though possibly empty).I just don't get this last requirement. Why is this necessary and how can you define something if you don't know what it is? And what is an empty definition, especially considering the OWA? ToreDavid, 'definition' doesn't work, ultimately.This discourse domain (AWWW and Web lore in general) is already littered with literature that's uses 'description' where you seek to replace with 'definition'.Where are the resources on the Web today that bear content with rdfs:isDefinedBy relations in the manner you suggest? I can show you a significant amount of resources that bear content with "describedby" (or similar) relations. Thus, you suggestion ultimately triggers:1. IANA registration 2. Regeneration of existing resources. And all of the above, you still have lots of debates to follow.'definition' is too specific and its intuition value is very low, in this context.A URI is an Identifier. In the Web medium (or system) it can identify the location of a Web resource en route to actual content access. It can also be used to name entities from other non Web realms where de-reference resolves to a location from which description oriented content (constrained by content mime type) is accessed.For what system do you anticipate explicit URI definition being definitively useful? An ontology for Linked Data? An ontology for the Semantic Web? An ontology of the World Wide Web?
David,Here is another route to solving the issue of preferred relation predicates re. wdrs:describedby and rdfs:isDefinedBy.
Instead of simply requiring rdfs:isDefinedBy, why not add the following relation:
rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:subPropertyOf wdrs:describedby .I can add the relation above to an ontology that I use for my inference context. Once in place, where you see rdfs:isDefinedBy I will have the option to see either rdfs:isDefinedBy or my preferred wdrs:describedby. All of this happens in the TBox leaving masses of existing ABox relations out in the wild unchanged.
How about that?I've cc'd in the LOD mailing list as this is a great example of semantic relations delivering amicability :-)
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
