On 04/09/2014 12:57 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
What then is RDF for you?
The Resource Description Framework.
It is a framework to describe resources,
and this includes predicates.
Anybody can define predicates the way they want,
otherwise RDF is useless to express semantics.
Ok, I describe ex:BaseballPlayer as
ex:BaseballPlayer owl:equivalentClass _:x .
_:x owl:intersectionOf ( ex:Person [ owl:onProperty ex:plays; owl:hasValue
ex:Baseball ] )
Is this RDF? Should all consumers of RDF understand all of this?
For example, do you consider N3 to be RDF?
No, quantification is not part of RDF.
Why not? I could certainly define an encoding of quanfification in RDF and
use it to define predicates.
Can predicates have non-local effects?
A predicate indicates a relationship between an object and a subject.
What this relationship means is described in the ontology to which the
predicate belongs.
Predicates may not influence non-related triples,
however, other triples might be influenced through a cascade of relations.
Why not? I can define predicates however I want, after all?
What does using owl:differentFrom in RDF commit you to?
It says that two things are different.
Clients that can interpret this predicate can apply its meaning.
This application does not change the model.
What model? Do you mean that all you care about is the abstract syntax?
What about rdf:type? What about rdfs:domain? Do all consumers of RDF need to
commit to the standard meaning of these predicates?
To me, what RDF does not do is just as important and what it does do. This
means that RDF captures only the RDF bit of the meaning of predicates - the
rest of their meaning remains inaccessible from RDF. Any attempt to go beyond
this is … going beyond RDF and it is very important do realize this.
RDF is just the model. Giving a predicate meaning is not extending the model.
How so? What else is giving a predicate meaning besides extending the model?
Best,
Ruben
I am really struggling to understand your view of RDF.
peter
