On Feb 21, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Pat,
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:05:45AM -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
Um... what about any of those statements:
rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdf:langString
rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf xsd:string
On Feb 21, 2015, at 3:04 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Pat,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:45:12AM -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
How do you bring this in line with property rdfs:range datatype,
especially
property rdfs:range rdf:langString?
Um... what about any
On Feb 21, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 2/21/15 9:48 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Kingsley Idehen
kide...@openlinksw.com
wrote:
On 2/20/15 12:04 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
Not to criticize, but to seek
On Feb 20, 2015, at 2:42 AM, Michael Brunnbauer bru...@netestate.de wrote:
Hello Paul,
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 09:19:06PM +0100, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Another case is where there really is a total ordering. For instance, the
authors of a scientific paper might get excited if you
On Oct 17, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 10/17/14 12:00 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Kingsley, greetings.
It is important to keep a clear distinction between what temporal DB calls
valid time and transaction time. T-time is when the record was inserted
judgements about inheritance, etc.. Better to not get this confused in
the first place, especially as the distinciton has been carefully worked out
already.
Pat Hayes
On Oct 16, 2014, at 7:00 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 10/16/14 3:33 AM, John Walker wrote:
Hi Kingsley
' chaH.
Pat Hayes
On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote:
The current Linked Data principles rely on specific standards and
protocols such as HTTP, URIs and RDF/SPARQL. Because I think it's
healthy to look at things from a different prospective, I was
wondering
On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Luca Matteis lmatt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
pfpschnei...@gmail.com wrote:
RDF includes a meaning for triples.
I think this is your biggest misconception. RDF does not include any
meaning of anything.
Well,
On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:31 AM, David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
On 03/30/2014 03:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ , . . ]
What follows from knowing that
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . ?
Suppose you know this and you also know that
x ppp y .
Can you infer x rdf:type ccc? I presume
On Mar 29, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider pfpschnei...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 03/29/2014 03:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:26 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hmm. I would be inclined to violate IRI opacity at this point and have
a convention that says that any
, that is the *official* semantics.
Pat Hayes
Thanks,
Tom
--
Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5
the W3C to create a datatype :-)
Pat Hayes
On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Svensson, Lars l.svens...@dnb.de wrote:
All,
Milorad wrote:
I was wandering maybe someone have any advice how to approach
modeling the following construction that is in my opinion closely related to
your question but stated
On Jul 4, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
On 04/07/2013 17:45, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 7/4/13 11:49 AM, Olivier Berger wrote:
snip to Olivier's question:
For instance, I'd like to match as identical two doap:Projects
resources
which have same doap:homepage if I can match
On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
...snip
Well, its a formal, artificial, language, and it comes with a semantics as
part of its definition. Just like many other logics in many logic textbooks,
many
On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
Hi folks,
A couple of years ago I got the idea of finding alternatives to the
official definition of RDF, especially the semantics. I've always
found the official docs less than crystal clear, and have always
harbored the suspicion that
On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Hi, and thanks for the comments. FYI I have some draft articles in
the can that will add clarity and detail, I hope. In the meantime ...
On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:49 AM
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible
without RDF (no matter serialization) :)
however this is different from previous definitions
i think its a step forward.. but it is different from
Kingsley, long story short, what you mean when you say linked data is not
exactly what most other people mean when they say those words. Your
understanding of what they mean is much wider and more all-encompassing than
the common meaning. Personally, I see what you are getting at and (I think)
Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2013-06 -10, at 19:48, Steve Harris wrote:
On 2013-06-09, at 20:36, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
...
***- value uknown (it should be there but the source doesn't know it)***
Actually that piece of information could be written down in a RDF Schema
graph like
On Jun 11, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 11:56 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 06/11/2013 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
[ . . . ] many RDF advocates
want to conflate Linked Data and RDF. This is technically wrong, and
marketing wise -- an utter disaster.
I have not
?)
Pat
; unless you can use something like N3.
Sven
Von: Pat Hayes
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Juni 2013 00:00
An: Sven R. Kunze
On Jun 10, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
2)
- value uknown (it should be there but the source doesn't know it)
Actually that piece
node:
:a :p _:x .
Pat Hayes
#schema
:A a rdfs:Class.
:p a rdf:Property; a rdfs:RequiredProperty; rdfs:domain :A.
#instance
:x a :A; :p :y. # :x is carries required property
:z a :A. # :z does not carry required property
Point here is, that instances cannot decide whether
On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:31 AM, Jan Michelfeit wrote:
Hi,
NULL most often simply represents that the value is not known, in my
experience
So another conclusion of this discussion can be that unknown is the most
sensible default interpretation if the triple is not there and there is no
On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Panzer,Michael wrote:
Hi David,
I don't believe this is quite right, as RDF semantics make no assumptions
about what the absence of a proposition/statement means.
Well, actually it does. Absence of a proposition means exactly that its
truthvalue is
wrote:
Hello Yusniel,
Pat Hayes and I have published a paper related to the small lightweight
ontology that
we use for describing the images within the application, though we have now
deviated somewhat from some of our initial thoughts described in that paper.
I could still send you
Kingsley
OK, I get it. Yes, we can add this. Thanks for the feedback.
Pat
On Apr 30, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/30/13 11:28 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hi KIngsley
Where would you suggest putting the rdfs:isDefinedBy links? If they are in
the ontology, then presumably
On Mar 24, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All,
Here is a key HTTP enhancement from Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1):
Semantics and Content note from IETF [1].
4. If the response has a Content-Location header field and its
field-value is a reference to a URI
On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 9 Nov 2012, at 15:44, Paul Gearon wrote:
Triples don't belong to a graph per se, but in general it's fine for the
same triple to appear in more than one graph.
True.
The exception to this is for those triples that
to
indicate the associated time (there are several ways to do this, you might want
to invent your own.)
Pat Hayes
Thanks,
Vishal
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St
On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:59 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
This seems an appropriate place for me to drop in my 2 cents.
I like the 303 trick. People that care about this stuff can use it
(and appear to be doing so), but it doesn't really matter too much
that people that don't care don't use it. It
?
Nothing, and let's face it.
The http-range-14 rule provides an answer to this which seems reasonably
intuitive.
Wonder if it can be the same Pat Hayes writing this as the one who wrote six
years ago In Defence of Ambiguity :)
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/irw2006/presentations
On Mar 26, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2012-03 -26, at 06:18, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I may be misreading you here, but I'm not against unambiguous
definition. My show what is actually broken comment (on twitter) was
essentially the same question as I've asked here before,
On Mar 24, 2012, at 5:28 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 23 March 2012 14:33, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
not an IR/NIR type distinction, but
I am sympathetic, but...
On Mar 23, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also
On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
I see hasColor a lot in the OWL documentation but I was trying to work
out a way to say something has a certain color.
I understand linked open colors was a joke
Anyone know of an ontology with color or hasColor as a predicate?
are Margaret Warren and Pat Hayes, working in the eastern Gulf coast-NW
Florida area (New Orleans, Mobile, Pensacola, Tallahassee, Atlanta). Ideally a
candidate would live close enough for regular contact, but remote connection is
a possibility.
Send resume and enquiries to m...@carmapro.com
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as this.
Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female dogs. One
simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a lot that can be
said about dogs without getting into that second topic.
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[As an aside, I would claim that most reviews are in fact about things -
restaurants, books, music - not about the web pages.]
Or about the weather in Oacala, for example.
Pat
Dave
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has
flexibility, it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual
thing? To me that sounds like saying, given
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing
it describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write
classical model theory to accommodate
Korzybski.
I'd prefer they actually read him, though I won't hold my breath. Sorry to
bother you by using a very long foreign name.
Pat
On 6/15/2011 6:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on
publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to refer to
these information resources themselves, making them unable to talk about
Web pages using
On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:51 PM, William Waites wrote:
* [2011-06-12 22:52:18 -0700] Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us écrit:
] OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you
] are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue.
] Want to try running it past me again
On Jun 12, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 12 Jun 2011, at 00:51, Pat Hayes wrote:
Well, I am sympathetic to not defending HTTP-range-14 and nobody ever, ever
again even mentioning information resource, but I don't think we can just
make this go away by ignoring it. What do we
On Jun 12, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 12 Jun 2011, at 18:34, Pat Hayes wrote:
What do we say when the range of a property is supposed to be, say,
people, but its considered OK to insert a string to stand in place of the
person?
Well, I can define a class that contains
On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
(there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
thing, right?
Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things
they describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed to
be, eg
On Jun 11, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
All,
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback regarding schema.rdfs.org, both here and
off-list.
This is a collective response to various arguments brought up. I'll
paraphrase the arguments.
...
Nothing is gained from the range
On Jun 11, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.de
wrote:
That's a good point. The problem is that xsd:string is too narrow and
rdfs:Literal is too broad. RDF 1.1 is likely to define a class of all string
literals
On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
...
It's just that the schema.org designers don't seem to care much about the
distinction between information resources and angels and pinheads. This is
the prevalent attitude outside of this mailing list and we should come to
terms
On Mar 2, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 3/2/11 4:56 PM, Nathan wrote:
Hi All,
There are certain practical issues relating to how you name things,
httpRange-14 and the well covered 303/# ground.
I'm wondering, are there any more problems like this people have
On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:00 AM, David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 07:23 +0100, Jiří Procházka wrote:
[ . . . ]
I think it is flawed trying to enforce URI == 1 thing
Exactly right. The URI == 1 thing notion is myth #1 in Resource
Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of
On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 11/11/10 9:00 AM, David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 07:23 +0100, Jiří Procházka wrote:
[ . . . ]
I think it is flawed trying to enforce URI == 1 thing
Exactly right. The URI == 1 thing notion is myth #1 in Resource
Identity and
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +, Norman Gray wrote:
Greetings,
On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's problem+solution
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
Dave Reynolds wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:11 +, Norman Gray wrote:
Greetings,
On 2010 Nov 4, at 13:22, Ian Davis wrote:
http://iand.posterous.com/is-303-really-necessary
I haven't been aware of the following formulation of Ian's
On Nov 5, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Nathan wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Antoine Zimmermann
antoine.zimmerm...@insa-lyon.fr wrote:
Le 05/11/2010 18:25, Giovanni Tummarello a écrit :
How about something that's totally independant from HEADER issues?
think normal people
algorithms than
pieces of code.
Pat Hayes
A module is a kind of document, so is ontology. So, owl:Ontology
rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Document !
Well, this is a theory. If there's a common practice of using '#'-ending URI
for ontologies, maybe we should accept it.
No strong opinion. Wasn't
FWIW, the Oasis page
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=xdi
has this on it:
The XDI TC has developed a new RDF based model...
which suggests that it now is not being proposed as an alternative to RDF,
anyway.
Pat
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at
once that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines
RDF?
Well, the current specs do
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
[ . . . ]
foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial
procedure we
should
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On 2010-07-05, Pat Hayes wrote:
This objection strikes me as completely wrong-headed. Of course
literals are machine processable.
What precisely does Sampo as a plain literal mean to a computer?
Do give me the fullest semantics you can
On Jul 7, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:11:19 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
The world doesn't have facts like that in it. Classes and properties
are intellectual constructs, not the stuff of reality. Hell, if a
particle can be a wave, then surely a class
.
Words like 'support' beg the question.
Pat Hayes
Reto
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola(850)202 4440
On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than
not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic
specification, which would have to keep track
On Jul 6, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates (although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily extend to this usage, if
required, and the analogous structures
On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
So, if
:s lit :o .
must not have a semantic meaning, what about
lit rdf:type rdf:Property .
? As, according to
On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:03 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:03:19 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
So, if
:s lit :o .
must not have a semantic meaning, what about
lit
On Jul 6, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 6 Jul 2010, at 14:03, Michael Schneider wrote:
Toby Inkster:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:43:17 -0500
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Well, nobody is suggesting allowing literals as predicates
(although
in fact the RDF semantics would easily
this, to
reject a widely accepted standard, and advocate reversion to a home-
made URI scheme seems to me to be blatantly irresponsible.
Pat Hayes
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St
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
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
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
.
Alternately, data partitioning and data validation is really
important for me, so I need something that has some of the nature
of an RDMS schema. Of course, I can get some of this by applying
my own hermeneutics to OWL and adding some features
Again, details would be wonderful.
Pat Hayes
On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
While this may be possible, you've promoted owl:sameAs to have a
true
semantic relationship at this level. You're treating
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed
On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format
other than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by
writing things like
01-02-1481
On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
Well, JSON is a syntax for serializing some kinds of data used in
programming languages; it's not a programming language itself. I
expect
W3C will be doing some more work in bridging RDF and JSON soon; my
most
recent (unofficial)
On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
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
way to make progress, IMO. Although, I believe that
there are still people using COBOL, so you may have a point.
Pat Hayes
- Steve
--
Steve Harris, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
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
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;
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,
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the
subject
or the predicate.
Just to clarify
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
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org 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 pretty
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 dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it
is
called) claims could probably make
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 dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however
it is
called) claims
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual
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
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
in several ways
at once.
Pat Hayes
and convention seems pretty important for the semantic
web to work right.
Just because you feel like you should do it doesn't mean you should.
RDF/XML is a pain in the butt to parse because there a million ways to
serialize it. Your example is doubly uncompelling
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 dan...@danbri.org wrote:
That said
On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
Jeremy Carroll jer...@topquadrant.com 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
from a follow your nose perspective) if blank nodes are considered
controversial?
Seems to me that from the linked data POV, anything that can be an
object should also be useable as a subject. Of course, that does allow
for the view that both of them should only ever be IRIs, I guess.
Pat Hayes
in pursuing this
further. Does this RDF/RDB++ vision provide any guidance towards what
RDF is supposed to, like, mean? Pointers?
Pat Hayes
Axel
On Jun 30, 2010, at 21:52 , David Booth wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote
for a generalization of this notion to other media.
Pat Hayes
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola(850)202 4440 fax
, Cyc (and
Umbel based on it) say that an element like sodium is a *class* whose
elements are all *mereological sums* of pure sodium. Dbpedia mentions
sodium, and they have links, but I bet that most users of Dbpedia
wouldn't buy into the Cyc ontological craftiness.
Pat Hayes
snip
If we
On Feb 17, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
... . RDF was originally
standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ...
whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel spreadsheets,
SQL databases, 3d models. ...
Really? That was not the impression I got when I
On Feb 17, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Feb 17, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
... . RDF was originally
standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ...
whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel
spreadsheets,
SQL
/
Mogwai_(band)* (as far as I can tell) though.
But there is an owl:sameAs which links to http://mpii.de/yago/resource/Mogwai_(band)
, which appears to be a use of a URI referring to the non-information
resource. Is this an example of the kind of link you are looking for?
Pat Hayes
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
