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 are allowed, and do have
genuine use cases, in
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number of
cultural differences for me, which have helped me understand why some people
have disagree with things that seem
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer reto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs Jo; :nameOf :Jo]
and a store could
+1
On 06/07/10 09:23, Danny Ayers wrote:
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuerreto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs
On 6 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number of
cultural differences for me, which have helped me understand why
Hi Kingsley,
Congrats re. 1.0 release!
Thanks!
One thing, please confirm the situation re. Uberblic and DBpedia at the
ontology level, are they 1:1 or do you have an alternative ontology for
Uberlic.
No, Uberblic and DBpedia ontology are not 1:1. The Uberblic ontology started
quite
Danny Ayers wrote:
I've been studiously avoiding this rat king of a thread, but just on
this suggestion:
On 2 July 2010 11:16, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer reto.bachm...@trialox.org wrote:
...
Serialization formats could support
Jo :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs Jo; :nameOf :Jo]
and a
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 extend to this usage, if
required, and the analogous structures are allowed, and do have
genuine use
Georgi Kobilarov wrote:
Hi Kingsley,
Congrats re. 1.0 release!
Thanks!
One thing, please confirm the situation re. Uberblic and DBpedia at the
ontology level, are they 1:1 or do you have an alternative ontology for
Uberlic.
No, Uberblic and DBpedia ontology are not
Hi everyone,
We'd like to announce a major update of Lexvo.org [1], a site that brings
information about languages, words, characters, and other human language-
related entities to the LOD cloud. Lexvo.org adds a new perspective to the
Web of Data by exposing how everything in our world is
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 what you say above, you are willing to allow for
literals in subject
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 what you say above, you are willing to allow
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 rdf:type rdf:Property .
? As, according to what
2010/7/6 Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The
same as the following is a false statement:
foaf:Person a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is valid RDF and even valid
Dan Brickley wrote:
2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka oji...@gmail.com:
On 07/06/2010 03:35 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The
same as the following is a false statement:
foaf:Person a rdf:Property .
Why do you think so?
I believe it is
After 7 days of discussion, are there any volunteers to implement this
proposal? Or you specify the wish and I should implement it (and
Kingsley should pay) for an unclear purpose? Sorry, no.
I should remind one more time: without two scheduled implementations
right now and two complete
Ivan Mikhailov wrote:
After 7 days of discussion, are there any volunteers to implement this
proposal? Or you specify the wish and I should implement it (and
Kingsley should pay) for an unclear purpose? Sorry, no.
I should remind one more time: without two scheduled implementations
right now
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:30:06 +0200
Michael Schneider schn...@fzi.de wrote:
What do you mean by false statement?
False in the same sense that this is false:
http://danbri.org/foaf.rdf#danbri
foaf:name Barry Chuckle .
Whether it is provably false by an automated agent is
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 extend to this usage, if
required, and the
Ivan, all,
Le 06/07/2010 18:00, Ivan Mikhailov a écrit :
After 7 days of discussion, are there any volunteers to implement this
proposal? Or you specify the wish and I should implement it (and
Kingsley should pay) for an unclear purpose? Sorry, no.
Not only there are volunteers to
I'd like to apologize in advance for being sarcastic, especially since I
have really nothing against Henry... ;)
Le 06/07/2010 19:45, Henry Story a écrit :
This would be possible to say. The problem is that there would be no
way on earth that anyone could come to an agreement as to what kind
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 are
+1
The fact that
basically, all the upper levels of the Semantic Web layer
cake are not based on RDF but on generalised RDF
(see also my list of concrete citations at [1]) makes it, in my humble
opinion, essentially mandatory for an RDF working group to standardize
generalized RDF,
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?
I've read that 'The RDF Semantics as stated works fine with triples
which have any
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
Hello!
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org 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?
I've read
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
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
[...]
This is
the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning.
Whoo, I doubt if that idea is going to fly. I sincerely hope not.
So to clarify a bit:
A serialisation is just a way to write down an RDF document in a
computer. A serialisation of RDF must respect the abstract RDF syntax,
which forbids literals in subject position. If the serialisation allows
literals as subject, it is not a serialisation of RDF but it
Thanks for the clarification Antione,
I'll take one of those generalised rdf's to go when available, can I pre
order?
Best,
Nathan
Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
So to clarify a bit:
A serialisation is just a way to write down an RDF document in a
computer. A serialisation of RDF must respect
Nathan wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:02 PM
To: Pat Hayes
Cc: Toby Inkster; Linked Data community; Semantic Web
Subject: Re: Subjects as Literals
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
On 6 Jul 2010, at 21:57, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
I'd like to apologize in advance for being sarcastic, especially since I have
really nothing against Henry... ;)
Le 06/07/2010 19:45, Henry Story a écrit :
This would be possible to say. The problem is that there would be no
way on
On 06/07/2010 09:44, Henry Story henry.st...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Jul 2010, at 09:19, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Hugh Glaser h...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Sampo.
I venture in again...
I have much enjoyed the interchanges, and they have illuminated a number
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 use to arbitrate between competing understandings
On 7/5/2010 3:40 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A particular problem in this realm has been characterised as
S-P-O v. O-R-O and I suspect that this reflects a Semantic Web/Linked Data
cultural difference,
SNIP
You see this as a problem of having a literal in the subject position.
I might equally
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. As in, is it the Finnish Sampo as
in me, my neighbour,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:23 -0400, 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
Would anyone be willing to try to capture the results of this thread in
a page or two of consensus (neutral point-of-view) text that would
explain the situation to at least a majority of the folks who've jumped
in here with misunderstandings?
To my reading, you (Michael) and Antoine are
Antoine, all,
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:54 +0100, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Not only there are volunteers to implement tools which allow literals as
subjects, but there are already implementations out there.
As an example, take Ivan Herman's OWL 2 RL reasoner [1]. You can put
triples with
On 6 July 2010 13:34, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Danny Ayers wrote:
:Jo rdfs:value Jo
together with
:Jo rdf:type rdfs:Literal
?
1: is there and rdfs:value? (rdf:value)
My mistake, it is rdf:value
2: I would *love* to see rdf:value with a usable tight definition that
everybody
This is just to draw attention on Jonathan Rees' blog on these subjects:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/07/new_opportunities_for_linked_d.html
Ivan (the go-between:-)
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:
42 matches
Mail list logo
