Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

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, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Paul Gearon wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan <nathan@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 up a level to RDFS.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31
>>
>> Didn't seem to get much feedback or thoughts (afaik), but given the  
>> climate
>> perhaps it's worth giving some strong consideration to as a  
>> community.
>>
>> (Or just doing because it's a bloody good idea & would remove OWL  
>> from
>> virtually every conversation we end up having).
>
> I agree with this. In particular, I'd love to see an equivalent to
> owl:sameAs in the rdfs namespace, probably with a more intuitive name,
> like rdfs:equals. It would take OWL out of a lot of conversations.
>
> There weren't any accepted proposals for working on RDFS at the
> workshop, but that doesn't mean it can't still be done. However, it
> would need a lot of public support if this were to be considered. If
> people are interested, they should voice their opinions.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Friday, 2 July 2010 04:54:17 UTC