Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Bob, A desired feature that led to the current rdf:List structure is the ability to "close" a list - so some separate sub-graph can't "silently" add properties not in the original. Your pattern might allow this through additon of a "maxSlotIndex" property on "olo:OrderedList" (not suggesting

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On 28 Jun 2010, at 09:51, Graham Klyne wrote: > Bob, > > A desired feature that led to the current rdf:List structure is the ability > to "close" a list - so some separate sub-graph can't "silently" add > properties not in the original. Also that consumers could notice when some intermedi

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Hi Aldo, > Hi Bob, I like the basic idea here because it matches a real modelling need > to represent ordered collections/lists. > A vocabulary for that can be submitted as a design patterns on ODP [1] for > public utility. An OWL ontology describing ordered/non-ordered collections [1] has been

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

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 pretty awesome messes even without OWL: # An rdf:List that loops around..

2nd CFP and keynote speaker annoucement; KIELD workshop @ EKAW 2010

Apologies for cross posting. 1st Workshop on Knowledge Injection into and Extraction from Linked Data == * Prof. Martin Hepp will give a keynote to the workshop: Ontology Engineering for Linked Data: What Makes For A Good On

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

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 pretty awesome messes even with

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

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 pretty awesome m

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On 30/06/2010 12:45, "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 pretty awesome messes e

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

I wondered who'd be first to mention lazy-evaluation FP :) (My example would have been in Haskell) Barry On 30/06/10 20:01, Hugh Glaser wrote: On 30/06/2010 12:45, "Toby Inkster" wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and di

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, 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

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

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]

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, [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: The Ordered List Ontology

On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, 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) claim

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 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

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 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, [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]

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

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]

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, [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]

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 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

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

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, [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, [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]

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]

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: The Ordered List Ontology

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, 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: > T

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

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

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

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

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 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, [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 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 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, [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

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 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

Support for Linked Data for E-Commerce in DotNetNuke Shop Software / GoodRelations

Dear all: The latest release of the NB_Store module [1] for e-commerce sites based on DotNetNuke CMS [2] seems to support GoodRelations in RDFa. See here for details: http://nbstore.codeplex.com/releases/view/45017 The underlying DotNetNuke CMS is said to power over 600,000 production w

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan