Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 22:44 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. I've tried to be quiet but I couldn't let this dig slide by ... Jena, which Jeremy's software is based on, *does* allow literals as subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we go to some lengths to stop the generalized triples escaping. So the lack of subjects as triples in the exchange syntax or the publicly standardized model has had no detrimental impact on our ability to work with them internally. Dave [Apologies if this point has already been made down thread, I'm only 303 messages in and have 242 left to scan :)]
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 7/11/2010 4:25 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote: Jena, which Jeremy's software is based on, *does* allow literals as subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we go to some lengths to stop the generalized triples escaping. So the lack of subjects as triples in the exchange syntax or the publicly standardized model has had no detrimental impact on our ability to work with them internally. I have noticed similar points - a lot of reasoner based software, and graph internals software, and probably triple storage software will allow subjects as literals - but when considering systems and applications that actually do something useful (rather than just the internals) then you interface with people, and the difference between a literal and something else is crucial. This is where I see the costs. Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
I greatly respect Jeremy's thoughts, and they may be spot-on in this case, but I urge the community to be cautious about how much weight to give this kind of pragmatic economics-driven argument generally as the semantic technology industry grows. Virtually every organization has -- should have! -- increasing vested interests in their own unique approach. In many cases, their stakeholders may be better-served by maintaining the status quo; many others will be served by upsetting the collective apple cart. Progress is made collectively by hearing out and sometimes acting on well-reasoned arguments from the other side, even if the implications are changing one's code base! Industry consortia move things that look and smell like standards -- W3C recommendations -- ahead by appealing to the greater good. Thus I interpret Jeremy's comments as not a call to halt progress; rather, he's simply asking for a strong case be made that the proposed changes would benefit the *community* in a compelling way. He's asking for well-reasoned arguments for change that colleagues around the ecosystem might present to their grumpy, grey-suited, money-grubbing, cigar-smoking management ;) John On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote: On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening I was asking for the economic benefit of the change, as opposed to the elegance benefit. Personally, I am wholly convinced by the elegance argument - but it will not convince my management, nor should it. I suspect there are several other companies and other open source activities that have investments that assume literals do not occur in subject position. Elegance is not, IMO, a sufficient argument to negate those investments. (The sort of thing we are talking about, is what sort of display is appropriate for a subject of a triple - we know that it is not a literal, so certain code paths, and options are not considered). Of course, in an industrial consortium costs to one member maybe justified by benefits to another - but costs to any member do need to be offset by some benefit to some member ... I have yet to see much of an argument (Henry got a small bit of the way), that there are any such benefits (i.e. ones which have a dollar, euro or yuan value). I have pointed to dollar costs ... I expect to see some such benefit. I don't think that expectation is unreasonable, more a boundary that keeps people honest ... and not just indulging in an intellectual game (he says politely). Jeremy -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. http://bitwacker.wordpress.com olyerick...@gmail.com Twitter: @olyerickson
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
The other economic-like argument is that there is only so much developer bandwidth in the world, whether open source or proprietary. Do you think that bandwidth should be applied to changing current code to track changes, to making existing systems more usable, or (open source) on supporting users? Andy (Disclaimer: I'm sure some email somewhere makes the same point. But.) On 01/07/2010 4:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy
RE: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Henry Story wrote: So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 123 length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs 123; length 3. But this is not an equivalent translation in RDF(S). The URI owl:sameAs has no specific meaning in RDF(S); you could likewise write ex:yz instead. Only OWL tools, or at least RDF(S) tools with additional support for owl:sameAs would be able to understand what you are intending here. For other RDF tools, you are just asserting that there is some resource with two properties, but the values of these two properties are in no way related to each other -- quite in contrast to the original triple. So this should certainly not be suggested as best practice in an RDF context. Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schnei...@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider === FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus ===
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening I was asking for the economic benefit of the change, as opposed to the elegance benefit. Personally, I am wholly convinced by the elegance argument - but it will not convince my management, nor should it. I suspect there are several other companies and other open source activities that have investments that assume literals do not occur in subject position. Elegance is not, IMO, a sufficient argument to negate those investments. (The sort of thing we are talking about, is what sort of display is appropriate for a subject of a triple - we know that it is not a literal, so certain code paths, and options are not considered). Of course, in an industrial consortium costs to one member maybe justified by benefits to another - but costs to any member do need to be offset by some benefit to some member ... I have yet to see much of an argument (Henry got a small bit of the way), that there are any such benefits (i.e. ones which have a dollar, euro or yuan value). I have pointed to dollar costs ... I expect to see some such benefit. I don't think that expectation is unreasonable, more a boundary that keeps people honest ... and not just indulging in an intellectual game (he says politely). Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) Ian
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who adopts N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat says it seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few syntax bits and the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try and get graph literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this again in 2020 and wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have them :) my how this has came full circle, Best, Nathan
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Nathan wrote: Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who adopts N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat says it seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few syntax bits and the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try and get graph literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this again in 2020 and wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have them :) (at RDF Semantic level.. my how this has came full circle, Best, Nathan
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs Well, I think the broader perspective that the RDF workshop failed to consider is exactly companies' costs and spec marketability. The message still sent out is a crazy (or visionary ;) research community creating spec after spec, with no stability in sight. And with the W3C process not really encouraging the quick or full refactoring of existing specs (like getting rid of once recommended features), each spec adds *new* features and increases the overall complexity of identifying market-ready Recs: RIF seems to be a replacement for OWL, but OWL2 was only just Rec'd. Which should I implement? RDFa 1.1 and SPARQL 1.1 both look like implementation nightmares to me. Current RDF stores can't even be used for semantic feed readers because of poor ORDER BY DESC(?date) implementations, but the group is already working on query federation. RDFa is becoming the new RSS 1.0, with each publisher triggering the development of dedicated parsers (one for SearchMonkey data, one for RichSnippets, one for Facebook's OGP, etc., but a single interoperable one? Very hard work.) Something is wrong here. Featuritis is the reason for the tiny number of complete toolkits. It's extremely frustrating when you know in advance that you won't be able to pass the tests *and* have your own (e.g. performance) needs covered. Why start at all then? The W3C groups still seem to believe that syntactic sugar is harmless. We suffer from spec obesity, badly. If we really want to improve RDF, then we should go, well, for a low-carb layer cake. Or better, several new ones. One for each target audience. KR pros probably need OWL 2.0 *and* RIF, others may already be amazed by scoped key-value storage with a universal API (aka triples + SPARQL). These groups are equally important, but have to be addressed differently. Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? c'mon!). It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad community and marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks have demonstrated that this is possible. Similar success stories are probably RIF for the business rules market, OWL for the DL/KR sector, and many more. (Mine is agile, flexi-schema website development.) RDF Next Steps should be all about scoped learning material and deployment. There were several workshop submissions (e.g. by Jeremy, Lee, and Richard) that mentioned this issue, but the workshop outcome seems to be purely technical. Too bad. Benji -- Benjamin Nowack http://bnode.org/ http://semsol.com/
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Ian, On 7/2/2010 3:39 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayespha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = 1) technology meets need perceived by users, and 2) technology meets the need in a way acceptable to users ?? What early majority? How long did it take HTML to take off? Or XML for that matter, at least in its simpler forms? As I say in another post, I am not suggesting I have an alternative but am suggesting that we broaden the conversation to more than we have invested so much so we have to be right sort of reasoning. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! Ian Ian
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) I like this solution. There are a lot of good reasons for keeping rdf/xml as is. For one many people use it. Secondly it does not have named graphs, which means that at least people using it, must stick to saying what they know/believe, instead of trying to say what they think other people know. This means there is a lot less ways for people to go wrong. But we could focus on N3 and standardise it as N4 perhaps. This would give us a powerful notation for writing out rules, doing clever belief based reasoning, add methematical functions, ... which will be needed by any linked data application: those apps need to have rules such as believe what Jane says about knitting but not about medicine. As those advanced usages get to be tested we can then finally come back to rdf/xml and other formats if needed and enhance them. I think doing this will help the vendors start thinking about enhancing their rdf machinery making it a lot more flexible over time. For some reason these vendors seem to have unnecessarily limited the functioning of their engines. It is also a lot easier to teach something like N3. Henry Ian
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Ian, On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can say: I want to do that. Which was one of the strong points of HTML. I am less convinced that argues in favor of vendor position that their investment equals how things have to be on the technical side. Consider that when users see a large visualization of the WWW they think, I want to do that!, but when they see the graph code required, they become less interested. ;-) I am less inclined to listen to vendors and much more inclined to listen to users. A short story to illustrate the issue: The Library of Congress Subject Headings, could be considered an ontology of sorts, has been under construction for decades. But until Karen Drabenstott (now Karen Marley) decided to ask the question of how effectively do users of the LCSH fare, no one had asked the question. I won't keep you in suspense, the results were: Overall percentages of correct meanings for subject headings in the original order of subdivisions were as follows: children, 32%, adults, 40%, reference 53%, and technical services librarians, 56%. Ouch! See Understanding Subject Heading in Library Catalogs http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~ylime/meaning/meaning.pdf It may be that the RDF stack is everything it is reported to be, but that does not mean that it fits the needs of users as they see them. The only way to know that is to ask. Asking the few users that mistakenly wander into working group meetings is probably insufficient. Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
RE: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Pat Hayes wrote: It is also important to distinguish changes which actually harm your code, and changes which simply make it less complete. Allowing literal subjects will not invalidate your engines in any way: it will simply mean that there will be some RDF out there which they may be unable to process, or which might require them to do some preprocessing (such as replacing literal :p :o . with _:x :p :o . _:x :same literal . with a special company-specific :same property marker. For example.) But none of this *invalidates* your huge pile of expensive investment in code base; it merely makes it just a wee bit obsolete. But by the time this process is over, it will be obsolete anyway, I am sure, simply by virtue of being about four or five years older. If I were forced to update an existing/in-use RDF-based system to treat literal subjects, without changing the core of the system (for the moment at least), the following idea comes to mind: 1) The parsers and formatters would need to be extended to treat generalized RDF syntax, and there would need to be some internal representation of generalized RDF graphs. Ok, this would be some work to do, but... 2) Once I have an internal representation of generalized RDF graphs, we can come up with a set of new URIs to replace all the bad literal subjects with these URIs. There would be a table representing this replacement. 3) Now, I can give the translated RDF to the original tool. The RDF is fine now (conforming to RDF2004), and so the tool will work without problems. The output of the tool would also be RDF2004 compliant. Because, the tool, being a traditional RDF tool, won't introduce literals in subject position itself. 4) All output is then be re-translated to a generalized RDF form, by substituting the special URIs with the original literals, and can be presented as such by the new formatters (see 1). There is certainly some code to write here, but most of it should be straightforward to create and could be written once and made into an open-source/free-software library to be used by everyone who needs it. And, why shouldn't this library not be created by the RDF2 working group itself? So, the investment-killer argument should not be a major one, at least... Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schnei...@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider === FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus ===
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote: On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can say: I want to do that. Which was one of the strong points of HTML. Ok, what users will want is the Social Web. And here is the way to convince people: The Social Network Privacy Mess: Why we Need the Social Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=994DvSJZywwfeature=channel ( This can of course be improved) The general ideas should be clear: dystopia: we cannot have all social data centralised on one server. utopia: there is a lot of money to be made in creating the social web, and thereby increasing democracy in the world. This can ONLY be done with linked data. And there is a real need for it. Henry
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) I like this solution. There are a lot of good reasons for keeping rdf/xml as is. For one many people use it. Secondly it does not have named graphs, which means that at least people using it, must stick to saying what they know/believe, instead of trying to say what they think other people know. This means there is a lot less ways for people to go wrong. But we could focus on N3 and standardise it as N4 perhaps. This would give us a powerful notation for writing out rules, doing clever belief based reasoning, add methematical functions, ... which will be needed by any linked data application: those apps need to have rules such as believe what Jane says about knitting but not about medicine. As those advanced usages get to be tested we can then finally come back to rdf/xml and other formats if needed and enhance them. I think doing this will help the vendors start thinking about enhancing their rdf machinery making it a lot more flexible over time. For some reason these vendors seem to have unnecessarily limited the functioning of their engines. It is also a lot easier to teach something like N3. +1 I would be very happy with that as well. A standardised N3 would be great. Best, y Henry Ian
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Henry, On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote: On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can say: I want to do that. Which was one of the strong points of HTML. Ok, what users will want is the Social Web. And here is the way to convince people: The Social Network Privacy Mess: Why we Need the Social Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=994DvSJZywwfeature=channel ( This can of course be improved) The general ideas should be clear: dystopia: we cannot have all social data centralised on one server. utopia: there is a lot of money to be made in creating the social web, and thereby increasing democracy in the world. This can ONLY be done with linked data. And there is a real need for it. Several presumptions: 1) there is a lot of money to be made creating the social web - ? On what economic model? Advertising? Can't simply presume that money can be made. 2) thereby increasing democracy in the world - ??? Not real sure what that has to do with social networks. However popular increasing democracy may be as a slogan, it is like fighting terrorism. Different governments and populations have different definitions for both. I have my own preferences but realize there are different definitions used by others. 3) can ONLY be done with linked data. Really? Seems like the phone companies from your example did it long before linked data. 4) there is a real need for it. ? I get as annoyed as anyone with the multiple logins and universities do have some common logins for their internal systems but I am not sure I would describe it as a need. At least until some survey shows that a large number of users are willing to pay for such a service. Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick Henry -- Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Hi Richard, Such work can not be realistically done within W3C for obvious reasons. It has to be done outside W3C by the community. I believe that's what the normal/standard web developers (I think Henry Story called them Web Monkeys ;) ) do already, or? Cheers, Bob
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Hi Benjamin, On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:01, Benjamin Nowack wrote: Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? c'mon!). It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad community and marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks have demonstrated that this is possible. Similar success stories are probably RIF for the business rules market, OWL for the DL/KR sector, and many more. (Mine is agile, flexi-schema website development.) Quite right. But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*. RDF Next Steps should be all about scoped learning material and deployment. There were several workshop submissions (e.g. by Jeremy, Lee, and Richard) that mentioned this issue, but the workshop outcome seems to be purely technical. Too bad. In all fairness, the workshop was specifically about figuring out what changes and additions to the RDF core specifications make sense, and it was limited by a tight schedule. Better learning material and similar work items were not in scope. W3C is running a number of XGs and IGs, which are in a position to produce marketing and teaching materials. Do you have proposals for concrete things that the existing groups should tackle? Best, Richard Benji -- Benjamin Nowack http://bnode.org/ http://semsol.com/
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Patrick Durusau wrote: Henry, On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote: On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can say: I want to do that. Which was one of the strong points of HTML. Ok, what users will want is the Social Web. And here is the way to convince people: The Social Network Privacy Mess: Why we Need the Social Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=994DvSJZywwfeature=channel ( This can of course be improved) The general ideas should be clear: dystopia: we cannot have all social data centralised on one server. utopia: there is a lot of money to be made in creating the social web, and thereby increasing democracy in the world. This can ONLY be done with linked data. And there is a real need for it. Several presumptions: 1) there is a lot of money to be made creating the social web - ? On what economic model? Advertising? Can't simply presume that money can be made. Look I could leave that to you as an exercise to the reader. I don't know why people want me to give them answers also on how to make money. Sometimes you have to think for yourself. Just think how much bigger a global social web is. Then think everyone connecting to everyone. Then think that perhaps you could sell software to firms that have certain needs, to doctors and hostpitals that have other needs, to universities, etc. etc... It's up to your imagination really. 2) thereby increasing democracy in the world - ??? Not real sure what that has to do with social networks. However popular increasing democracy may be as a slogan, it is like fighting terrorism. Because people can publish their own data, and control what they say and to whome they say it a lot more. Different governments and populations have different definitions for both. I have my own preferences but realize there are different definitions used by others. I don't care what dictators think about democracy frankly. 3) can ONLY be done with linked data. Really? Seems like the phone companies from your example did it long before linked data. Phone companies do something very simple: connect phones. The internet connects computers. The web connects pages. You need the semantic web to connect things (and hence people) 4) there is a real need for it. ? I get as annoyed as anyone with the multiple logins and universities do have some common logins for their internal systems but I am not sure I would describe it as a need. You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a dream. Or closer to home, in the 80ies most people did not miss getting information quickly, the library was around the corner. Or they did not miss buying their tickets online. You need a bit of imagination to see what you are missing. Which is why a lot of people stop dreaming. It's painful. At least until some survey shows that a large number of users are willing to pay for such a service. I have never heard of an inventor making surveys to test things out. That is nonsense. At most what that can tell you is little details, ways to fine tune a system. It will never let you see the big changes coming. Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! you too. Patrick Henry -- Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Henry, Another reason why the SW is failing: You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a dream. Or closer to home, in the 80ies most people did not miss getting information quickly, the library was around the corner. Or they did not miss buying their tickets online. You need a bit of imagination to see what you are missing. Which is why a lot of people stop dreaming. It's painful. I would reply with equally ad hominem remarks but it isn't worth the effort. Patrick On 7/2/2010 7:03 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Patrick Durusau wrote: Henry, On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote: On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.netwrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can say: I want to do that. Which was one of the strong points of HTML. Ok, what users will want is the Social Web. And here is the way to convince people: The Social Network Privacy Mess: Why we Need the Social Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=994DvSJZywwfeature=channel ( This can of course be improved) The general ideas should be clear: dystopia: we cannot have all social data centralised on one server. utopia: there is a lot of money to be made in creating the social web, and thereby increasing democracy in the world. This can ONLY be done with linked data. And there is a real need for it. Several presumptions: 1) there is a lot of money to be made creating the social web - ? On what economic model? Advertising? Can't simply presume that money can be made. Look I could leave that to you as an exercise to the reader. I don't know why people want me to give them answers also on how to make money. Sometimes you have to think for yourself. Just think how much bigger a global social web is. Then think everyone connecting to everyone. Then think that perhaps you could sell software to firms that have certain needs, to doctors and hostpitals that have other needs, to universities, etc. etc... It's up to your imagination really. 2) thereby increasing democracy in the world - ??? Not real sure what that has to do with social networks. However popular increasing democracy may be as a slogan, it is like fighting terrorism. Because people can publish their own data, and control what they say and to whome they say it a lot more. Different governments and populations have different definitions for both. I have my own preferences but realize there are different definitions used by others. I don't care what dictators think about democracy frankly. 3) can ONLY be done with linked data. Really? Seems like the phone companies from your example did it long before linked data. Phone companies do something very simple: connect phones. The internet connects computers. The web connects pages. You need the semantic web to connect things (and hence people) 4) there is a real need for it. ? I get as annoyed as anyone with the multiple logins and universities do have some common logins for their internal systems but I am not sure I would describe it as a need. You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a dream. Or closer to home, in the 80ies most people did not miss getting information quickly, the library was around the corner. Or they did not miss buying their tickets online. You need a bit of imagination to see what you are missing. Which is why a lot of people stop dreaming. It's painful. At least until some survey shows that a large number of users are willing to pay for such a service. I have never heard of an inventor making surveys to test things out. That is nonsense. At most what that can tell you is little details, ways to fine tune a system. It will never let you see the big changes coming. Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! you too. Patrick Henry -- Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage:
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 02.07.2010 12:53:11, Richard Cyganiak wrote: But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*. Yes, full agreement here. That's why the thread felt so weird to me, I think the entire focus is wrong. But I'm starting to realize that this is apparently the wrong forum to state this ;) (It was the last W3C list I was still subscribed, too, though. Time to stop whining and move on, I guess). In all fairness, the workshop was specifically about figuring out what changes and additions to the RDF core specifications make sense, and it was limited by a tight schedule. Better learning material and similar work items were not in scope. I see now, thx, I just re-read the workshop page. Should have known better that this stuff is still not considered important enough to put it on an agenda.. W3C is running a number of XGs and IGs, which are in a position to produce marketing and teaching materials. Do you have proposals for concrete things that the existing groups should tackle? If the XGs can't figure that out on their own, we're pretty lost. What about interactive tools that answer find the specs relevant to me, who is using this?, what tools exist for this?, what are the dependencies?, examples?, what should I read next?. We'd need an annotation tool for the individual specs and spec sections. But then we'd have to use our own boring technology for what we say it's made for. Nah.., just had this cool idea of sub-queries in property paths, gotta work on that first. ;) Benji Best, Richard Benji -- Benjamin Nowack http://bnode.org/ http://semsol.com/
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Benjamin Nowack bnow...@semsol.com wrote: On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs Well, I think the broader perspective that the RDF workshop failed to consider is exactly companies' costs and spec marketability. The message still sent out is a crazy (or visionary ;) research community creating spec after spec, with no stability in sight. Not being a recipient of the message, I'm not in an appropriate position to judge there. However, I *can* say that the workshop did indeed consider companies' costs and spec marketability. There were numerous proposals that had some interest, but were ultimately ignored, with cost being the single biggest reason. And with the W3C process not really encouraging the quick or full refactoring of existing specs (like getting rid of once recommended features), each spec adds *new* features A lot of the discussion at the workshop was about *removing* features. A number of things have revealed themselves as a bad idea, and the community in general wants to be rid of them. However, no one wants to break existing systems, so a notion of weakly deprecating these features was introduced instead. Similarly, for new features there was a lot of discussion about how these could be introduced without breaking anything. In a number of cases, proposals were abandoned simply because it would impact existing systems too much. Where new features did receive support, it was due to widespread deployment despite there being no standard. Turtle and names graphs are the obvious ones here. The message that came out may have been quite different to this, but I think that the majority of the workshop was extremely conservative. Indeed, there were representatives from several companies and open source implementors who were there specifically to make sure that nothing too radical would receive serious attention. and increases the overall complexity of identifying market-ready Recs: RIF seems to be a replacement for OWL, but OWL2 was only just Rec'd. Which should I implement? RDFa 1.1 and SPARQL 1.1 both look like implementation nightmares to me. Current RDF stores can't even be used for semantic feed readers because of poor ORDER BY DESC(?date) implementations, but the group is already working on query federation. RDFa is becoming the new RSS 1.0, with each publisher triggering the development of dedicated parsers (one for SearchMonkey data, one for RichSnippets, one for Facebook's OGP, etc., but a single interoperable one? Very hard work.) Something is wrong here. Featuritis is the reason for the tiny number of complete toolkits. It's extremely frustrating when you know in advance that you won't be able to pass the tests *and* have your own (e.g. performance) needs covered. Why start at all then? The W3C groups still seem to believe that syntactic sugar is harmless. We suffer from spec obesity, badly. If we really want to improve RDF, then we should go, well, for a low-carb layer cake. Or better, several new ones. One for each target audience. KR pros probably need OWL 2.0 *and* RIF, others may already be amazed by scoped key-value storage with a universal API (aka triples + SPARQL). These groups are equally important, but have to be addressed differently. I think that part of the problem is the spec process itself. For instance, RDF 1.0 has too many features that we don't want (eg. reification), but how does something like that get removed? RDF 1.0 can't be modified at this point. All we can do is write something new that builds on previous versions. This is why features can only be deprecated rather than removed. So even if RDF 1.1 doesn't introduce any new features at all, and only removes things (through deprecation) it still adds to the document bloat. If the process allowed documents to be culled and reworked, then I think they would be. Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? c'mon!). You'll note that the group specifically said that this wasn't worth working on. (Incidentally, that's not a yes or a no. The group couldn't make those decisions. This process was simply about identifying if there is enough interest in updating RDF, and what should be worked on if it is). It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad community and marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks have demonstrated that this is possible. Similar success stories are probably RIF for the business rules market, OWL for the DL/KR sector, and many more. (Mine is agile, flexi-schema website development.) RDF Next Steps should be all about scoped learning material and deployment. There were several workshop submissions (e.g. by Jeremy, Lee, and Richard) that mentioned this issue, but the workshop outcome seems to be purely technical. Too bad. I
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Patrick Durusau wrote: Henry, Another reason why the SW is failing: You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a dream. Or closer to home, in the 80ies most people did not miss getting information quickly, the library was around the corner. Or they did not miss buying their tickets online. You need a bit of imagination to see what you are missing. Which is why a lot of people stop dreaming. It's painful. I would reply with equally ad hominem remarks but it isn't worth the effort. Patrick, There is no Semantic Web. There will be no Semantic Web. There was/is a Semantic Web Project. Key output from the Semantic Web Project is the burgeoning Web of Linked Data. The Web of Linked Data enhances what can be done with the Web. We just need to get RDF out of the way re. distractions! Linking Data across Data Spaces offers unique value that's bubbling up the value chain, exponentially. As I once said. Obama is going to be remembered for Linked Open Data rather than healthcare. Just stay tuned! Kingsley Patrick On 7/2/2010 7:03 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Patrick Durusau wrote: Henry, On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote: On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.netwrote: I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that investment by vendors = I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me know if not! I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can say: I want to do that. Which was one of the strong points of HTML. Ok, what users will want is the Social Web. And here is the way to convince people: The Social Network Privacy Mess: Why we Need the Social Web http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=994DvSJZywwfeature=channel ( This can of course be improved) The general ideas should be clear: dystopia: we cannot have all social data centralised on one server. utopia: there is a lot of money to be made in creating the social web, and thereby increasing democracy in the world. This can ONLY be done with linked data. And there is a real need for it. Several presumptions: 1) there is a lot of money to be made creating the social web - ? On what economic model? Advertising? Can't simply presume that money can be made. Look I could leave that to you as an exercise to the reader. I don't know why people want me to give them answers also on how to make money. Sometimes you have to think for yourself. Just think how much bigger a global social web is. Then think everyone connecting to everyone. Then think that perhaps you could sell software to firms that have certain needs, to doctors and hostpitals that have other needs, to universities, etc. etc... It's up to your imagination really. 2) thereby increasing democracy in the world - ??? Not real sure what that has to do with social networks. However popular increasing democracy may be as a slogan, it is like fighting terrorism. Because people can publish their own data, and control what they say and to whome they say it a lot more. Different governments and populations have different definitions for both. I have my own preferences but realize there are different definitions used by others. I don't care what dictators think about democracy frankly. 3) can ONLY be done with linked data. Really? Seems like the phone companies from your example did it long before linked data. Phone companies do something very simple: connect phones. The internet connects computers. The web connects pages. You need the semantic web to connect things (and hence people) 4) there is a real need for it. ? I get as annoyed as anyone with the multiple logins and universities do have some common logins for their internal systems but I am not sure I would describe it as a need. You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a dream. Or closer to home, in the 80ies most people did not miss getting information quickly, the library was around the corner. Or they did not miss buying their tickets online. You need a bit of imagination to see what you are missing. Which is why a lot of people stop dreaming. It's painful. At least until some survey shows that a large number of users are willing to pay for such a service. I have never heard of an inventor making surveys to test things out.
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common Logic, or something based on it. Pat On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote: Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who adopts N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat says it seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few syntax bits and the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try and get graph literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this again in 2020 and wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have them :) my how this has came full circle, 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
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
will look into ISO Common Logic to get familiar then - fwiw so long as it supports everything RDF Semantics supports, and allows graph literals, I'm easy and can change at any time :) Pat Hayes wrote: Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common Logic, or something based on it. Pat On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote: Ian Davis wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have implemented a better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects internally in the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for there to be no further change for the rest of the world and for all future time. Who knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this change is made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now? I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment in the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5 years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of us also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology direction. I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3 implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues between them) Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who adopts N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat says it seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few syntax bits and the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try and get graph literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this again in 2020 and wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have them :) my how this has came full circle, Best, Nathan
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:39 +0100, Nathan wrote: Sandro Hawke wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along. RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus process. RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business rules format. RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation syntax that looks like N3. RIF includes triples which can have literals as subject, of course. (In RIF, these triples are called frames. Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called frames, technically.But they are defined by the spec to be an extension of RDF triples.) does it cover formulae in s and o position? i.e. can the following be expressed (without reification): { :thermostat :temp :high } log:implies { :heating :power 0 } . It can express such rules. That's the main thing it does. It does not consider rules to be triples, however. Making rules just be triples is an interesting trick timbl did in the design of N3, but it causes a few problems, and the RIF Working Group decided instead to make rules be first-class syntactic objects instead. (The most obvious problem is: where do you declare the variables? Another is: how do you attach metadata to the rule? Many real-world rule systems have names and other management information associated with each rule.) As for putting formulas in the s and o position for non-rule applications, I would argue that is, by definition, reification. There is a RIF Working Draft [1] on doing that, but it's not part of the current standard. -- Sandro [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-in-rdf
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects. +1 Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html From: Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:38:00 -0700 To: Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com Cc: Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us, Toby A Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk, David Booth da...@dbooth.org, nat...@webr3.org, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org, Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org, Semantic Web community semantic-...@w3.org Subject: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals) Resent-From: Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:38:42 + I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner, so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit. ;-) On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have literals in subject positions No? Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. I agree, it would be good to get a full list of the benefits. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
RE getting a full list of the benefits, surely if it's being discussed here, Literals as Subjects must be *somebody's* Real(tm) Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution? And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote: Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner, so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit. ;-) On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have literals in subject positions No? Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. I agree, it would be good to get a full list of the benefits. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. http://bitwacker.wordpress.com olyerick...@gmail.com Twitter: @olyerickson
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone, Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical communities in what's a mini revolution to be split over such matters. Valid arguments from all sides, technical and not - but things are really getting conflated here, at least from what I originally intended to put forward (probably past that and insignificant now). I respect that everybody has made large investments, time, money, data, deployment, training and so forth; but really, non of that need be wasted and nobody need change anything that has any impact on any investments thus far. My (personal) concern is really on the 10 year timeline (a bit shorter to be honest ;), there are limitations and things in RDF that do, 100%, prevent the web of data as a whole from moving forwards - however, nobody has to scrap anything. Simply, define a non serialization specific model that caters for N3 and RDF - then let each standard or serialization specify what it implements/supports - the point here, and I stress, isn't to break anything, but to open it up to innovation and allow the next decades worth of hacking to get going So RDF/XML is perhaps broken technically and doesn't support all these things, who cares? it obviously works just fine for a deployment of several billion triples, why change it? why not define it as a subset of some core model? - I can only see one reason not to, and I hate to say it, but some kind of pride that the work done thus far and commonly adopted *must* be seen to be 'perfect' - please, don't take that as any insult, as none is intended. There are clearly very strong opinions on both sides, and very valid reasons too - there's an easy solution that would keep everybody happy and allow all to get on being productive and innovative - why not enable this? In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along - I'd do that today, but you see I'm a huge linked data proponent and see almost unquantifiable gains from adopting linked data - but if what I do to get a full working model of the web of data doesn't qualify as valid RDF at some level and you all can't utilize it, then it's a wasted effort and a road to no where - this, is the real issue, and many others have hit it, and will hit it again and again as time moves on. Please, do consider, nobody need loose anything here Best, Nathan - :( Jeremy Carroll wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Well said. Spend the money on a W3C-license javascript SPARQL engine, or on fixing and documenting and test suiting what's out there already. And whatever's left on rewriting it in Ruby, Scale, Lua ... Better still, put the money up as a prize, then you only have to give it to one party, while dozens of others will slave away for free in pursuit of said loot ;) Dan
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Saw them, smiled, threw them in the bin. I can't present a use case for Literals as Subject, but I did have a relevant experience recently when having written a reasoner for sindice I was briefly intrigued to discover that executing some owl rules leads to a production of statements where literals appear in the subject position. As the reasoner was written primarily with performance and memory constraints in mind, it never occurred to me to investigate whether the principles of rdf inferencing prohibit generating such statements. But since triples with literal in the subject position are currently not of any interest to us, we simply discard them during a filtering phase. Kind regards, Robert On 01/07/10 17:05, John Erickson wrote: RE getting a full list of the benefits, surely if it's being discussed here, Literals as Subjects must be *somebody's* Real(tm) Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution? And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Storyhenry.st...@gmail.com wrote: Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner, so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to your customers with this new benefit. ;-) On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have literals in subject positions No? Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. I agree, it would be good to get a full list of the benefits. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy -- Robert Fuller Research Associate Sindice Team DERI, Galway http://sindice.com/
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along. RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus process. RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business rules format. RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation syntax that looks like N3. RIF includes triples which can have literals as subject, of course. (In RIF, these triples are called frames. Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called frames, technically. But they are defined by the spec to be an extension of RDF triples.) Excellent, so there's no need to mess with RDF itself for a while? We can let RIF settle in for a couple years and see how it shapes up against people's RDFCore 2.0 aspirations? Dan
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Sandro Hawke wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along. RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus process. RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business rules format. RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation syntax that looks like N3. RIF includes triples which can have literals as subject, of course. (In RIF, these triples are called frames. Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called frames, technically.But they are defined by the spec to be an extension of RDF triples.) does it cover formulae in s and o position? i.e. can the following be expressed (without reification): { :thermostat :temp :high } log:implies { :heating :power 0 } .
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Nathan wrote: Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone, Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical communities in what's a mini revolution to be split over such matters. Valid arguments from all sides, technical and not - but things are really getting conflated here, at least from what I originally intended to put forward (probably past that and insignificant now). I respect that everybody has made large investments, time, money, data, deployment, training and so forth; but really, non of that need be wasted and nobody need change anything that has any impact on any investments thus far. My (personal) concern is really on the 10 year timeline (a bit shorter to be honest ;), there are limitations and things in RDF that do, 100%, prevent the web of data as a whole from moving forwards - however, nobody has to scrap anything. Simply, define a non serialization specific model that caters for N3 and RDF - then let each standard or serialization specify what it implements/supports - the point here, and I stress, isn't to break anything, but to open it up to innovation and allow the next decades worth of hacking to get going So RDF/XML is perhaps broken technically and doesn't support all these things, who cares? it obviously works just fine for a deployment of several billion triples, why change it? why not define it as a subset of some core model? - I can only see one reason not to, and I hate to say it, but some kind of pride that the work done thus far and commonly adopted *must* be seen to be 'perfect' - please, don't take that as any insult, as none is intended. There are clearly very strong opinions on both sides, and very valid reasons too - there's an easy solution that would keep everybody happy and allow all to get on being productive and innovative - why not enable this? In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other serializations of N3 to come along - I'd do that today, but you see I'm a huge linked data proponent and see almost unquantifiable gains from adopting linked data - but if what I do to get a full working model of the web of data doesn't qualify as valid RDF at some level and you all can't utilize it, then it's a wasted effort and a road to no where - this, is the real issue, and many others have hit it, and will hit it again and again as time moves on. Please, do consider, nobody need loose anything here Best, Nathan - :( Jeremy Carroll wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy Nathan, Cut long story short. RDF/XML != RDF. Trouble is this though: World perceives: RDF/XML == RDF. They don't see RDF Data Model aspect, at all. W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF Data Model. Even worse, RDF (generally perceived to be == RDF/XML) is now tagged as mandatory for Linked Data, which is simply not so at all. We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the foundation that bootstrapped the House of HTTP based Linked Data. RDF modulo Linked Data has nothing to show bar the kind to discussion thread you might have inadvertently triggered on the LOD and Semweb mailing lists; the very reason why I see RDF and Linked Data conflation an unfortunate attempt to force RDF (and all its troubles) on one of the truly useful outputs from the Semantic Web Project. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Hello Jeremy! One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index lookup, a difficult mathematical computation or fuzzy literal search, etc). If you were able to store the result in RDF once that magic predicate had been triggered once, you would just directly match against the cached version in further queries. Hence, processing time-- and $++ :) Cheers, y On 1 Jul 2010 16:37, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote: I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as subjects I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. Of course, the correct thing to do is to allow all three node types in all three positions. (Well four if we take the graph name as well!) But if we make a change, all of my code base will need to be checked for this issue. This costs my company maybe $100K (very roughly) No one has even showed me $1K of advantage for this change. It is a no brainer not to do the fix even if it is technically correct Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple store. y On 1 Jul 2010 18:15, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Jeremy! One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index lookup, a difficult mathematical computation or fuzzy literal search, etc). If you were able to store the result in RDF once that magic predicate had been triggered once, you would just directly match against the cached version in further queries. Hence, processing time-- and $++ :) Cheers, y On 1 Jul 2010 16:37, Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com wrote: I am still not heari...
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Cut long story short. [-cut-] We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the foundation that bootstrapped the House of HTTP based Linked Data. I have trouble believing that last point, so hopefully I am misunderstanding your point. Linked data in the public Web was bootstrapped using standard RDF, serialized primarily in RDF/XML, and initially deployed mostly by virtue of people enthusiastically publishing 'FOAF files' in the (RDF)Web. These files, for better or worse, were overwhelmingly in RDF/XML. When TimBL wrote http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html in 2006 he used what is retrospectively known as Notation 2, not its successor Notation 3. Notation2[*] was an unstriped XML syntax ( see original in http://web.archive.org/web/20061115043657/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html ). That DesignIssues note was largely a response to the FOAF deployment. This linking system was very successful, forming a growing social network, and dominating, in 2006, the linked data available on the web. The LinkedData design note argued that (post RDFCore cleanup and http-range discussions) we could now use URIs for non-Web things, and that this would be easier than dealing with bNode-heavy data. Much of the subsequent successes come from following that advice. Perhaps N3 played an educational role in showing that RDF had other representations; but by then, SPARQL, NTriples etc were also around. As was RDFa, http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/paper/58 ... I have a hard time seeing N3 as the foundation that bootstrapped things. Most of the substantial linked RDF in Web by 2006 was written in RDF/XML, and by then the substantive issues around linking, reference, aggregation, identification and linking etc were pretty well understood. I don't dislike N3; it was a good technology testbed and gave us the foundation for SPARQL's syntax, and for the Turtle subset. But it's role outside our immediate community has been pretty limited in my experience. cheers, Dan [*] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax.html
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 7/1/2010 10:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple store. OK - and why are these use cases not reasonably easily addressable using the N-ary predicate design pattern with a two place ltieral predicate i.e. instead of Lit1 p1 nonLit use nonLit p1 Lit1 instead of Lit1 p lit2 use _ p1 Lit1 _ p2 Lit2 === Not quite the same, but it will work - and save me a large amount of really very boring work Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Hi Dan, Kingsley Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in the corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a while ago. I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the fact that RDF was somehow just an avatar of the old paradigm EAV or however you name it, and I think it's a good way to introduce it, and keep all the gory aspects for later on, and in particular the syntactic mess (or should I say, joyful diversity). But I follow Dan on the fact that the Linked Data cloud has flourished on top of RDF-XML, at least as exchange and publication format. And I must say that what I see daily with data providers and consumers around Mondeca applications is data coming in and out in RDF-XML, for better and worse indeed. And for what I see, it's easier to have data providers now familiar with XML understand RDF through RDF-XML, by making XML-friendly RDF. RDF-XML has not to be ugly and unreadable and untractable, even if some tools have never care about that (no names). And as the grease-monkey in charge of migrating miscellaneous data to feed the semantic engine, I'm still quite happy with the current CSV-to-plain-XML-to-RDF-XML (via XSLT, yes) route. And I will give you the short feedback of our CTO in Mondeca after reading the output of RDFNext workshop. Well, no canonical XML syntax?. Believe me, all the rest he did not even care mentioning. Don't want to add to the I wish I'd been there but I would myself exchange every other evolution and future work for a canonical RDF-XML syntax. I know, I know, don't tell me. Bernard 2010/7/1 Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org (cc: list trimmed to LOD list.) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Cut long story short. [-cut-] We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the foundation that bootstrapped the House of HTTP based Linked Data. I have trouble believing that last point, so hopefully I am misunderstanding your point. Linked data in the public Web was bootstrapped using standard RDF, serialized primarily in RDF/XML, and initially deployed mostly by virtue of people enthusiastically publishing 'FOAF files' in the (RDF)Web. These files, for better or worse, were overwhelmingly in RDF/XML. When TimBL wrote http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html in 2006 he used what is retrospectively known as Notation 2, not its successor Notation 3. Notation2[*] was an unstriped XML syntax ( see original in http://web.archive.org/web/20061115043657/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html ). That DesignIssues note was largely a response to the FOAF deployment. This linking system was very successful, forming a growing social network, and dominating, in 2006, the linked data available on the web. The LinkedData design note argued that (post RDFCore cleanup and http-range discussions) we could now use URIs for non-Web things, and that this would be easier than dealing with bNode-heavy data. Much of the subsequent successes come from following that advice. Perhaps N3 played an educational role in showing that RDF had other representations; but by then, SPARQL, NTriples etc were also around. As was RDFa, http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/paper/58 ... I have a hard time seeing N3 as the foundation that bootstrapped things. Most of the substantial linked RDF in Web by 2006 was written in RDF/XML, and by then the substantive issues around linking, reference, aggregation, identification and linking etc were pretty well understood. I don't dislike N3; it was a good technology testbed and gave us the foundation for SPARQL's syntax, and for the Turtle subset. But it's role outside our immediate community has been pretty limited in my experience. cheers, Dan [*] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax.html -- Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Vocabulary Data Engineering Tel: +33 (0) 971 488 459 Mail: bernard.vat...@mondeca.com Mondeca 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web:http://www.mondeca.com Blog:http://mondeca.wordpress.com
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote: I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a predicate position is a URI node. On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote: but is that really correct? Because bnodes can be names for literals, and so you really do have literals in subject positions No? It is really correct that I have loads and loads of such code. This code conforms with the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation 2004 Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Dan Brickley wrote: (cc: list trimmed to LOD list.) On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: Cut long story short. [-cut-] We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the foundation that bootstrapped the House of HTTP based Linked Data. I have trouble believing that last point, so hopefully I am misunderstanding your point. I am basically saying: N3 representation of graphs lead to the Linked Data explosion. Linked data in the public Web was bootstrapped using standard RDF, serialized primarily in RDF/XML, and initially deployed mostly by virtue of people enthusiastically publishing 'FOAF files' in the (RDF)Web. These files, for better or worse, were overwhelmingly in RDF/XML. Not in my experience. **critical correction: I should have stated N-Triples instead of N3 re. base representation format at the foundation re. DBpedia ** The sequence went something like this. TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply in the dark ages. DBpedia project (which produced and still produces N-Triples dumps). Cool URIs and Linked Data Deployment/Pubishin guides that added initial incorporation of HTML descriptor pages into the mix while relegating RDF/XM to a negotiable representation option. Basically, without DBpedia there wouldn't be today's burgeoning Web of Linked Data (what the world has come to sorta understand and started using across many frontiers). IMHO. As I see it, RDF/XML is a course/blessing. Without RDF/XML sponging (so called rdfization) wouldn't have been possible on the scale we've achieve, many transformations would become more painful etc.. (Blessing side). On the other hand putting RDF/XML in front of people esp., those outside the core semweb community that assume RDF/XML == RDF (broader framework comprised of markup and data model) when talking about Graph Models is an unfortunate curse. When TimBL wrote http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html in 2006 he used what is retrospectively known as Notation 2, not its successor Notation 3. Notation2[*] was an unstriped XML syntax ( see original in http://web.archive.org/web/20061115043657/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html ). That DesignIssues note was largely a response to the FOAF deployment. This linking system was very successful, forming a growing social network, and dominating, in 2006, the linked data available on the web. The LinkedData design note argued that (post RDFCore cleanup and http-range discussions) we could now use URIs for non-Web things, and that this would be easier than dealing with bNode-heavy data. Much of the subsequent successes come from following that advice. Perhaps N3 played an educational role in showing that RDF had other representations; but by then, SPARQL, NTriples etc were also around. As was RDFa, http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/schedule/paper/58 ... Education leads to boostrap. N3 and Turtle are very good in this regard. Seeing the Triple is the key to comprehending what this whole thing is about. I am sure my first few comments on SWEO echoed this fundamental sentiment a few years back. RDF/XML has always made the triple difficult to discern via human eyes (esp. the RDF newbie variety). Making HTML based presentations (a Chris Bizer Richard Cyganiak obsession at the time) of RDF based resource descriptions, as exemplified by DBpedia is how the Web of Linked Data reached its bootstrap. RDF/XML relegation to machine/program usage (e.g. the stuff we did/do with our sponger cartridges) was crucial. I have a hard time seeing N3 as the foundation that bootstrapped things. Most of the substantial linked RDF in Web by 2006 was written in RDF/XML, and by then the substantive issues around linking, reference, aggregation, identification and linking etc were pretty well understood. I don't dislike N3; it was a good technology testbed and gave us the foundation for SPARQL's syntax, and for the Turtle subset. But it's role outside our immediate community has been pretty limited in my experience. To be more precise, my view is that the Linked Data bootstrap occurred modulo RDF/XML at the front door :-) Ironically, HTML (those green DBpedia pages) played the most important role of all. It allowed people to understand Linked Data via conventional Web usage patterns i.e. put a link in the address bar and then have something presented to you that made sense. RDFa impact albeit very significant is a very recent occurrence in the grand scheme of things re. Linked Data bootstrap (left most segment of the adoption curve). Of course, RDFa is certainly vital to crossing current and future adoption chasms as we continue to move from left to right along the tech adoption curve. cheers, Dan [*] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax.html -- Regards,
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote: ... So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 123 length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs 123; length 3. ? So that really you'd have to do no work at all? Just wondering Isn't owl:sameAs defined to be a relation between two URI references? Even if not, it is symmetric and would have the above imply {123 owl:sameAs _:b .} smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote: On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote: ... So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 123 length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs 123; length 3. ? So that really you'd have to do no work at all? Just wondering Isn't owl:sameAs defined to be a relation between two URI references? Not sure. In any case I suppose it would be simple to crete such an identity relation. Even if not, it is symmetric and would have the above imply {123 owl:sameAs _:b .} It does indeed imply that, though you can't write it out like that in most serialisations, other than N3. And being able to write it out, makes it easy to explain what symmetry means. I think people keep confusing syntax and semantics for some reason, even on the semantic web. Henry
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote: Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote: On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote: ... So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 123 length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs 123; length 3. ? So that really you'd have to do no work at all? Just wondering Isn't owl:sameAs defined to be a relation between two URI references? Not sure. It is, this won't work under OWL DL... In OWL Full if I think it will. I asked about this recently on this list... In any case I suppose it would be simple to crete such an identity relation. Even if not, it is symmetric and would have the above imply {123 owl:sameAs _:b .} It does indeed imply that, though you can't write it out like that in most serialisations, other than N3. And being able to write it out, makes it easy to explain what symmetry means. I think people keep confusing syntax and semantics for some reason, even on the semantic web. Henry signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On 7/1/2010 11:51 AM, Henry Story wrote: So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 123 length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs 123; length 3. ? I couldn't because chunks of my code are low level utils that are expected to, for example, write out what they read in, so I can't make transforms in the middle. Jeremy
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Jeremy, et al., I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution. To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing literals in the subject position. I've read the discussion and pondered the arguments on each side carefully, but I'm still convinced that it would ultimately be the better option to allow them. I understand the concern of those who would have to rework their architectures. Yet I don't believe that the cost exceeds the benefits for those who are starting to implement and for future implementations and future developments of the standards. As Sandro said, RIF is using triples with literals as subjects, as Robert Fuller said (in the LOD list), reasoners are internally inferring triples with literals in subject position, and other use cases (more or less convincing) have been proposed here. Why can't those inferences and facts be exposed and published in an RDF document? Now I'd like to show some of the strange things that happen when you combine SPARQL with inference regimes, that are due to the inability to have literals (in the syntax) as subject. Assume that you have the following data, harvested from the Web: :www dc:creator Tim Berners-Lee . :www dc:creator Tim Berners-Lee^^xsd:string . :www dc:creator :timbl . :timbl owl:sameAs Tim Berners-Lee . Note that literals are commonly used with dc:creator so this example is fairly realistic. Now, let us consider the following query: SELECT ?x WHERE { ?x a rdfs:Resource . } under the RDFS-entailment regime, this would provide the following answer: ?x -- :timbl Now, the following query: SELECT ?y WHERE { ?y a rdfs:Literal . } would provide no answer (under RDFS-entailment) and: SELECT ?z WHERE { ?z a xsd:string . } would provide no answer (under RDFS-entailment). Now, imagine a SPARQL engine with an RDFS+sameAs-entailment regime. The three queries above would give the following results: ?x -- :timbl // first query ?y -- :timbl // second query (I can infer that :timbl is a rdfs:Literal) and the last would give nothing. Now consider the query: SELECT ?t WHERE { ?u a rdfs:Literal . ?u owl:sameAs ?t . } It would give: ?t -- Tim Berners-Lee ?t -- :timbl However, the query: SELECT ?u WHERE { ?u a rdfs:Literal . ?u owl:sameAs ?t . } would give ?u - :timbl . This is very weird for me. Anyway, I do not expect such a change in the near future and the spec are like they are at the moment, so I live with it. Regards, -- Antoine Zimmermann Post-doctoral researcher at: Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway IDA Business Park Lower Dangan Galway, Ireland antoine.zimmerm...@deri.org http://vmgal34.deri.ie/~antzim/
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Antoine Zimmermann wrote: Jeremy, et al., I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution. To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing literals in the subject position. I've read the discussion and pondered the arguments on each side carefully, but I'm still convinced that it would ultimately be the better option to allow them. I understand the concern of those who would have to rework their architectures. Yet I don't believe that the cost exceeds the benefits for those who are starting to implement and for future implementations and future developments of the standards. As Sandro said, RIF is using triples with literals as subjects, as Robert Fuller said (in the LOD list), reasoners are internally inferring triples with literals in subject position, and other use cases (more or less convincing) have been proposed here. Why can't those inferences and facts be exposed and published in an RDF document? Now I'd like to show some of the strange things that happen when you combine SPARQL with inference regimes, that are due to the inability to have literals (in the syntax) as subject. Assume that you have the following data, harvested from the Web: :www dc:creator Tim Berners-Lee . :www dc:creator Tim Berners-Lee^^xsd:string . :www dc:creator :timbl . :timbl owl:sameAs Tim Berners-Lee . Note that literals are commonly used with dc:creator so this example is fairly realistic. Now, let us consider the following query: SELECT ?x WHERE { ?x a rdfs:Resource . } under the RDFS-entailment regime, this would provide the following answer: ?x -- :timbl Now, the following query: SELECT ?y WHERE { ?y a rdfs:Literal . } would provide no answer (under RDFS-entailment) and: SELECT ?z WHERE { ?z a xsd:string . } would provide no answer (under RDFS-entailment). Now, imagine a SPARQL engine with an RDFS+sameAs-entailment regime. The three queries above would give the following results: ?x -- :timbl // first query ?y -- :timbl // second query (I can infer that :timbl is a rdfs:Literal) and the last would give nothing. Now consider the query: SELECT ?t WHERE { ?u a rdfs:Literal . ?u owl:sameAs ?t . } It would give: ?t -- Tim Berners-Lee ?t -- :timbl However, the query: SELECT ?u WHERE { ?u a rdfs:Literal . ?u owl:sameAs ?t . } would give ?u - :timbl . This is very weird for me. Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving these up a level to RDFS. [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31 Didn't seem to get much feedback or thoughts (afaik), but given the climate perhaps it's worth giving some strong consideration to as a community. (Or just doing because it's a bloody good idea would remove OWL from virtually every conversation we end up having). ps: my only comment/addition to this was to add in Restriction's too Best, Nathan forking again, sorry!
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Dan Brickley wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: The sequence went something like this. TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) You mean you didn't see me lurking in the dark? :-) Humor aside, pre Linked Data meme, RDF just wasn't making any tangible progress (adoption or comprehension wise) beyond the inner sanctums of the Semantic Web community, you know what I mean when I say that, right? cheers, Dan -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: The sequence went something like this. TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) You mean you didn't see me lurking in the dark? :-) Humor aside, pre Linked Data meme, RDF just wasn't making any tangible progress (adoption or comprehension wise) beyond the inner sanctums of the Semantic Web community, you know what I mean when I say that, right? And all I'm saying is that it took a lot of work from a lot of people (most of whom are on these lists) to get to that stage where it was capable of breaking out. The state of RDF deployment, tooling, concepts, specs and community in 2006 was a significant improvement on what we had in, say 1999. The Linked Data push was a breakthrough, but it didn't happen in a vacuum or overnight; neither did SPARQL... cheers, Dan
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: snip/ Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving these up a level to RDFS. [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31 Didn't seem to get much feedback or thoughts (afaik), but given the climate perhaps it's worth giving some strong consideration to as a community. (Or just doing because it's a bloody good idea would remove OWL from virtually every conversation we end up having). I agree with this. In particular, I'd love to see an equivalent to owl:sameAs in the rdfs namespace, probably with a more intuitive name, like rdfs:equals. It would take OWL out of a lot of conversations. There weren't any accepted proposals for working on RDFS at the workshop, but that doesn't mean it can't still be done. However, it would need a lot of public support if this were to be considered. If people are interested, they should voice their opinions. Regards, Paul Gearon
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Dan Brickley wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: The sequence went something like this. TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply in the dark ages. It's only simple if you weren't there :) You mean you didn't see me lurking in the dark? :-) Humor aside, pre Linked Data meme, RDF just wasn't making any tangible progress (adoption or comprehension wise) beyond the inner sanctums of the Semantic Web community, you know what I mean when I say that, right? And all I'm saying is that it took a lot of work from a lot of people (most of whom are on these lists) to get to that stage where it was capable of breaking out. The state of RDF deployment, tooling, concepts, specs and community in 2006 was a significant improvement on what we had in, say 1999. The Linked Data push was a breakthrough, but it didn't happen in a vacuum or overnight; neither did SPARQL... Dan, Of course a lot of people have put a lot of effort into RDF. I don't think I am refuting or in anyway seeking to undermine that obvious fact. When I express concerns about RDF (model and representation conflation) it typically gets translated into: I don't like RDF or I have a problem with RDF. When outline the path to a breakthrough it gets translated to: SPARQL and Linked Data dropping out of the sky etc.. IMHO. A lot of people who put a lot of hard work into RDF still don't seem to look back at why it took until 2006-2007 for an eventual breakthrough, seriously. What is the unambiguous definition of RDF? Which one of these definitions is gospel? 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/ -- The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. 2. http://www.w3.org/RDF/ -- RDF is a standard model for data interchange on the Web. #1 infers Markup #2 infers Model While in reality its supposed to be a framework for describing Things based on a ??? graph model. I would really like us to collectively focus on not repeating mistakes from the past as we move forward. We've all put lots of energy, knowledge, and hard cash into this journey. Linked Data remains a pragmatic reflection of getting RDF distractions out of the way en route to effectively demonstrating vital evolution of the Web IMHO. A green page may not maketh a standard but it darn well created kinetic energy from potential energy :-) cheers, Dan -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF Data Model. I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore. XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It has the same publication status as RDF/XML. (And as it happens, XHTML+RDFa 1.0 is capable of representing a larger subset of the RDF data model than RDF/XML is, as it uses CURIEs rather than QNames. CURIEs are capable of expressing predicate URIs such as http://example.com/1 which cannot be expressed as QNames.) -- Toby A Inkster mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk http://tobyinkster.co.uk
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Toby Inkster wrote: On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400 Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote: W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF Data Model. I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore. XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It has the same publication status as RDF/XML. You know that and so do I. We aren't the audience with the understanding etc.. (And as it happens, XHTML+RDFa 1.0 is capable of representing a larger subset of the RDF data model than RDF/XML is, as it uses CURIEs rather than QNames. CURIEs are capable of expressing predicate URIs such as http://example.com/1 which cannot be expressed as QNames.) I am sure you know you are preaching to a believer on this one :-) My critical concern and gripe is that RDF/XML continues to be a source of confusion re. RDF and Linked Data. Some interesting links from prior discussions about RDF/XML and RDF problem: 1. https://gist.github.com/221494/e19ca02a9b5a613705d9160ecb49784c67559898 2. http://bnode.org/media/2009/07/08/semantic_web_technology_stack.png -- great visualization for talking about RDF (its role is crystal clear with zero conflation or RDF/XML overhang ) . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Tim Finin wrote: On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote: ... So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed literals in subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned 123 length 3 . Into _:b owl:sameAs 123; length 3. ? So that really you'd have to do no work at all? Just wondering Isn't owl:sameAs defined to be a relation between two URI references? In OWL-DL it is so restricted. Emphasis on the DL. So, don't use owl:sameAs. Use your own propietary sameAs; it needn't even be symmetric. We are after all taking RDF here, not OWL-DL. And in the case under discussion (keeping Jeremy from losing thousands of dollars or much restful sleep), nobody outside the company is ever going to see the strange sameAs triples which protect his archaic but expensive code from the wild syntactic deviance in the new RDF. Pat Even if not, it is symmetric and would have the above imply {123 owl:sameAs _:b .} 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
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one. Pat On Jul 1, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Paul Gearon wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote: snip/ Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving these up a level to RDFS. [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31 Didn't seem to get much feedback or thoughts (afaik), but given the climate perhaps it's worth giving some strong consideration to as a community. (Or just doing because it's a bloody good idea would remove OWL from virtually every conversation we end up having). I agree with this. In particular, I'd love to see an equivalent to owl:sameAs in the rdfs namespace, probably with a more intuitive name, like rdfs:equals. It would take OWL out of a lot of conversations. There weren't any accepted proposals for working on RDFS at the workshop, but that doesn't mean it can't still be done. However, it would need a lot of public support if this were to be considered. If people are interested, they should voice their opinions. Regards, Paul Gearon 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
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Hi Pat, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one. Yes, I know that borrowing terms is allowed. Indeed, it gets used every day. The thing is that we're talking about maybe cleaning RDF up a little. (emphasis on the maybe - though that's starting to look more likely). In this case, it makes sense to me that a term for equality would make it's way into RDFS, simply because there are a lot of use cases where people are sticking to just that namespace, with the single exception of owl:sameAs. Also from an aesthetics point of view, equality is such a common concept that I'm surprised it wasn't already lower in the stack. Nothing in RDF *needs* to be changed. But if it does get updated, then I think that it would be nice to clean things a little while all the new features get added (such as named graphs). Regards, Paul Gearon
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
Paul Gearon wrote: Hi Pat, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one. fwiw, I was thinking more from a developer standpoint, hitting one simple spec doc and finding most of what they need to get modelling without being faced with OWL FULL and DL and the vast amounts of docs + reading. This is the main reason I personally mentioned :) Yes, I know that borrowing terms is allowed. Indeed, it gets used every day. The thing is that we're talking about maybe cleaning RDF up a little. (emphasis on the maybe - though that's starting to look more likely). In this case, it makes sense to me that a term for equality would make it's way into RDFS, simply because there are a lot of use cases where people are sticking to just that namespace, with the single exception of owl:sameAs. Also from an aesthetics point of view, equality is such a common concept that I'm surprised it wasn't already lower in the stack. Nothing in RDF *needs* to be changed. But if it does get updated, then I think that it would be nice to clean things a little while all the new features get added (such as named graphs). Regards, Paul Gearon
Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Paul Gearon wrote: Hi Pat, On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote: Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one. Yes, I know that borrowing terms is allowed. Indeed, it gets used every day. The thing is that we're talking about maybe cleaning RDF up a little. (emphasis on the maybe - though that's starting to look more likely). In this case, it makes sense to me that a term for equality would make it's way into RDFS, simply because there are a lot of use cases where people are sticking to just that namespace, with the single exception of owl:sameAs. Also from an aesthetics point of view, equality is such a common concept that I'm surprised it wasn't already lower in the stack. Point taken. I agree, except that I think equality is much trickier on the Web than we ever realized until recently. Nothing in RDF *needs* to be changed. But if it does get updated, then I think that it would be nice to clean things a little while all the new features get added (such as named graphs). Agree. Pat Regards, Paul Gearon 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