W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2010

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:47:18 -0500
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <108DE338-5220-4E24-AB47-3906AAA8C151@ihmc.us>
To: Axel Rauschmayer <axel@rauschma.de>

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 appealing?

Hmm. Im not sure what this means. Each literal has its own identity,  
in a sense, but what the literal refers to is the same in each case:  
every occurrence of "23"^^xsd:number must refer to twenty-three. And  
since this (the number, not the literal) is what the literal refers  
to, and so what the RDF which uses the literal is talking about, why  
does it matter which literal you use to refer to it with?

Maybe what you really need to do is to reify the literal and then talk  
about that. Then your notion of this literal vs. that literal does  
make sense, but it bears on the semantics of reification in RDF (or  
whatever finally takes its place in some future incarnation.)

> Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generation relational  
> database and think that RDF could be sold to many people this way  
> (there is possibly are larger audience for this than for ontologies,  
> reasoning, etc.). Especially considering how No-SQL is currently  
> taking off. This part needs some love and seems to suffer from the  
> almost exclusive focus on semantics.

Fair enough. I guess Im not sure how this next-generation-RDB usage  
fits with the RDF semantics, but I'd be interested 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:
>> [ . . . ]
>>>> 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 data etc.
>>>
>>> I wholly agree. Allowing literals in subject position in RDF is a  
>>> no-
>>> brainer.
>>
>> 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
>> charter include literals as subjects:
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/06/28-rdfn-minutes.html
>>
>> Charter MUST include:      0
>> Charter SHOULD include:    1
>> Charter MAY include:       6
>> Charter MUST NOT include: 12
>>
>> Readers, please note that this was a non-binding, informative STRAW  
>> POLL
>> ONLY -- not a vote.
>>
>> Pat, I wish you had been there.  ;)
>>
>> David
>>
>>> (BTW, it would also immediately solve the 'bugs in the RDF
>>> rules' problem.) These arguments against it are nonsensical. The  
>>> REAL
>>> argument against it is that it will mess up OWL-DL, or at any rate  
>>> it
>>> *might* mess up OWL-DL.
>>>
>>> The Description Logic police are still in charge:-)
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Nathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494  
>>> 3973
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
>> http://dbooth.org/
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not  
>> necessarily
>> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> Axel.Rauschmayer@ifi.lmu.de
> http://hypergraphs.de/
> :: Hyena: connected information manager, free at hypergraphs.de/ 
> hyena/ ::
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 05:20:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:28 UTC