Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor Docs/Reso

Re: Subjects as Literals

Thanks Steve. Sort of settles the issue for me. Yes, I see RDF as simply a graph, and so can't understand why rdfs:label is any more sensible than rdfs:labels (as an inverse of rdfs:label)- it looks like a convention on the directed graph to me, and arbitrary. But as others have pointed out, pragm

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello! On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 >> Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> Here are the reasons I voted this way: >>> >>> - it will mess up RDF/XML >> >> No it won't - it will just mean that

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello, Please, don't extend the existing model, for two reasons. >From implementor's POV, arbitrary literals are bad for any sort of indexing. >From AI specialist's POV, literals are simply not subjects. Can a number or a string _act_? Can you provide a living specimen of it? The feature is use

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Kingsley! [snip] > > IMHO an emphatic NO. > > RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have > Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to > Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor > Docs/Resources). An "I

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: >re OWL DL, does it have to consider every triple in a 'graph'? No, and it cannot do so in general. Strictly speaking, OWL DL doesn't even have a notion of RDF triples or RDF graphs. OWL DL "thinks" in terms of constructs such as axioms and class expressions. The genuine "abstract"

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology] On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique >> identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular >> instance of "abc&quo

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Henry Story wrote: > On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote: >> The Description Logic police are still in charge:-) > >I agree that literals can be subjects. In any case they are, because you >just can take an inverse function from a thing to a string, and you have >it. I guess, the Descriptio

Re: Subjects as Literals

On 2010-07-01, at 03:20, Hugh Glaser wrote: > In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can > answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ): > For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to > reject RDF that has literals as subject? In my defe

Re: Subjects as Literals

+1 to the points below. I think one should point out that rdf semantics allows them, and that in an open world they just can't be excluded. In N3 literals as subjects are often used. And the cwm repository is a good place to look for examples @prefix log: .

Re: Subjects as Literals

Hello everybody, I think the main issues are already discussed. Hence, here are some summarized notes of my thoughts: 1. We shouldn't propagate that a user (always a machine or human beeing) has to go this way and not the other one. Leaving this decision by the user, leads to more user satis

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data' >> practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd >> immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }. >> >> Surely all of the subjects as literals a

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 22:14 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > > > I suppose my questions here would be: > > > > 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides > > being an academic exercise)? > > A few off the top of my head. > > 1. Ti

Re: Subjects as Literals

How about internationalization? If the subject is a literal, how would translations be associated? On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:14 , Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > >> I suppose my questions here would be: >> >> 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject sta

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of "abc" and not all literals "abc". Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less app

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote: I suppose my questions here would be: 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides being an academic exercise)? A few off the top of my head. 1. Titles of books, music and other works might have properties such as the da

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: Here are the reasons I voted this way: - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? T

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Ross Singer wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: Great - more crystallization of the problem. On 01/07/2010 02:14, "Ross Singer" wrote: I suppose my questions here would be: 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besi

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:52 PM, David Booth wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: David Booth wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: [ . . . ] Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 'walk round it', and further good practise c

Re: Subjects as Literals

On 01/07/2010 02:59, "Ross Singer" wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> Great - more crystallization of the problem. >> >> On 01/07/2010 02:14, "Ross Singer" wrote: >> >>> I suppose my questions here would be: >>> >>> 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > Great - more crystallization of the problem. > > On 01/07/2010 02:14, "Ross Singer" wrote: > >> I suppose my questions here would be: >> >> 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides >> being an academic exercise)? > I w

Re: Subjects as Literals

Great - more crystallization of the problem. On 01/07/2010 02:14, "Ross Singer" wrote: > I suppose my questions here would be: > > 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides > being an academic exercise)? I would have thought the same as a use case for a literal as object

Re: Subjects as Literals

I suppose my questions here would be: 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides being an academic exercise)? 2) Does literal as subject make sense in "linked data" (I ask mainly from a "follow your nose" perspective) if blank nodes are considered controversial? Question #2

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jirí Procházka wrote: >I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be >able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, >language, etc) does it break OWL DL Literals in owl:sameAs axioms are not allowed in OWL (1/2) DL. owl:sameAs can only be used to eq

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jeremy Carroll wrote: Jiří Procházka wrote: I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, language, etc) does it break OWL DL yes it does (or any other formalism which is base of some ontology exte

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jiří Procházka wrote: I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, language, etc) does it break OWL DL yes it does (or any other formalism which is base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: Here are the reasons I voted this way: - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already the case. Yes!

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Here are the reasons I voted this way: > > - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already the case. -- Toby A Inkster

Re: Subjects as Literals

Good post - gets to my (mis?)understanding of what is the problem. On 30/06/2010 21:54, "Robert Sanderson" wrote: > > I have to add my 2 cents here. > >>> However, if you see some specific harm in permitting statements about >>> literals, please tell us what that harm would be. > > The specif

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:54:47 -0600 Robert Sanderson wrote: > "London" dcterms:isPartOf "England" > > That is true only for the particular London which is the capital of > England, not London, Texas, London, Ontario or London in Kiribati. Consider: "London" dcterms:isPartOf dbpedia:Engl

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a me

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if adde

Re: Subjects as Literals

I have to add my 2 cents here. > However, if you see some specific harm in permitting statements about > > literals, please tell us what that harm would be. > The specific harm that I would see is that statements would be made about literals given some particular context of that literal, rather t

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims c

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...

Re: Subjects as Literals

On 30/06/2010 19:55, "David Booth" wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> Nathan wrote: >>> Pat Hayes wrote: > [ . . . ] >>> Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with >>> 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a fe

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

David Booth wrote: I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having literals as subjects. A straw poll showed that of those at the workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group c

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of "abc" and not all literals "abc". Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less appealing? Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generatio

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] > > Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered > > with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a > > few simple notes on best practise for lin

Re: Subjects as Literals

David Booth wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: [ . . . ] Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few simple notes on be

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 30 June 2010 21:14, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > Nathan wrote: >> >>> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 > Dan Brickley wrote: > >> That said, i'm

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 06/30/2010 09:09 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: > >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: > That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or howeve

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably ma

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:30 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Nathan wrote: > > Pat Hayes wrote: [ . . . ] > > Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with > > 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few > > simple notes on best practise for linked d

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed... You can create some p

<    1   2