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,
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 :)
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
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
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,
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
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
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
