RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

Why does hydra need the spook friendly ambiguity ?  Make them wink, nod, cross their fingers, or whatever..

To me, "enable no inferences to be made on /people/markus/friends." smells like plausible cover for doing exactly that by "mistake".  Implementations do not "re-enable" no inferences, either, not their job.

--Gannon
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 3/31/14, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

 Subject: RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships
 To: public-hydra@w3.org, "'Linked Data community'" <public-lod@w3.org>, "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
 Date: Monday, March 31, 2014, 1:35 PM
 
 On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:09 PM,
 Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
 > In actuality, defining things like owl:sameAs is indeed
 extending RDF.
 > Defining things in terms of OWL connectives also goes
 beyond RDF. This
 > is different from introducing domain predicates like
 foaf:friends.
 > (Yes, it is sometimes a bit hard to figure out which
 side of the line
 > one is on.)
 
 Peter, could you please describe where you draw the line? I
 generally look at RDF as a data model and in those terms
 nothing that has been suggested really extends RDF. You
 probably have something related to semantics in mind, please
 note however that Ruben (please correct me if I'm wrong)
 didn't suggest to change RDF's semantics, i.e., the triples
 
 
    </people/markus> foaf:knows [
        hydra:memberOf
 </people/markus/friends>
    ] .
 
 enable no inferences to be made on /people/markus/friends.
 More specifically, they do not say that the members of
 /people/markus/friends are related to /people/markus via
 foaf:knows.
 
 But perhaps you had something completely different in
 mind!?
 
 
 --
 Markus Lanthaler
 @markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 19:20:39 UTC