Re: Semantics of rdfs:seeAlso (Was: Is it best practices to use a rdfs:seeAlso link to a potentially multimegabyte PDF?)

On 01/13/2011 01:09 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 06:29 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 
>> This is the Linked Open Data list.
>> The Linked Data world is a well-defined bit of engineering.
>> It has co-opted the rdf:seeAlso semantics of "if you are looking up x load y" from the much 
>> earlier FOAF work.  
> 
> Where is this "well-defined bit of engineering" defined in such a way
> that makes that "co-option" clear? [*]
> 
> Assuming a particular use of rdfs:seeAlso as a convention for some
> community (e.g. FOAF) that wants to adapt that particular pattern is
> just fine.
> 
> Updating specs in the future to narrow the interpretation to support
> this assumption usage might be OK, so long as due process is followed,
> but that hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Complaining when others go by the existing spec does not seem
> reasonable.
> 
>> The URI space is full of empty space waiting for you to define terms
>> with whatever semantics you like for your own use.
>> But one cant argue philosophically that for some reason 
>> the URI rdfs:seeAlso should have some other meaning when people are using it and 
>> there have been specs.
> 
> Those specs support Martin's usage, as his quotes from them clearly
> demonstrated.
> 
>> One *can* argue that the RDFS spec is definitive, and it is very loose in its definition.
> 
> Loose in the sense of allowing a range of values but as a specification
> it is unambiguous in this case, as Martin has already pointed out:
> 
> "When such representations may be retrieved, no constraints are placed
> on the format of those representations."
> 
>> We could look at maybe asking for an erratum to the spec
>> to make it clear and introduce the other term int the same spec.
> 
> Or mint a sub-property of rdfs:seeAlso which provides the additional
> constraints.
> 
> Dave

+1

I also consider part of Linked Data that authoritative definition of a
term is the one obtained by dereferencing it, which in case of RDFS is
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# .

Best,
Jiri
> [*] And yes, I'm well aware of [1] which does mention the foaf
> convention but it does so just as one convention in passing, there's no
> clear suggestion in there that tools should rely on that convention for
> arbitrary linked data.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html 
> 
> 
>