W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Inverse properties in Turtle

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:15:35 -0400
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B3B6EB03-4BE1-40E2-82EB-6E80F6C1A424@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:

> On 2012-08-12, at 02:26, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/08/12 19:40, Steve Harris wrote:
>>>> On 11 Aug 2012, at 18:02, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 11, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11/08/12 07:46, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10 August 2012 19:25, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear RDF Working Group
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (Just a personal response here)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ditto.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Agreed. This is a niche topic, but I still now thing it is of
>>>>>>> occasional use.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In particular, as a maintainer/editor/contributor for popular
>>>>>>> RDF vocabularies (FOAF, schema.org and others) I believe there
>>>>>>> is implicit demand for this which is often expressed instead in
>>>>>>> terms of requests for new inversely named properties. Whenever
>>>>>>> someone asks a vocabulary maintainer to add 'isDirectorOf'
>>>>>>> alongside 'director', or asks what the inverse of 'actor', or
>>>>>>> 'associatedAnatomy' or 'depicts' is, they are talking about
>>>>>>> just this issue.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For those people, do you think "^" will read acceptable to those
>>>>>> people?  (Your point about "isXof" not always being the best
>>>>>> choice of name is also interesting.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3. It is not in SPARQL's data syntax. 4. There is a high bar
>>>>>>>> to add a new feature to an existing, well understood and
>>>>>>>> implemented language like Turtle.  This feature does not fit
>>>>>>>> that in my judgement.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Taking those two together, ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I only support adding such a construct if it has a comparable
>>>>>>> notation in SPARQL. They might not be 100% identical, but the
>>>>>>> basic concept ought to either be in both, or in neither. Turtle
>>>>>>> and SPARQL share a common heritage in N3; if we can make
>>>>>>> teaching them (Turtle and SPARQL; I consider N3 something like
>>>>>>> a "Labs project") easier by sharing structure and ideas, we
>>>>>>> ought to.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A difference between "^:directory" (or the "is...of" syntax) and
>>>>>> a property :isDirectorOf is that the "^" solution immediately
>>>>>> does the reversing of the written subject and written object.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> :Ridley_Scott ^:director :Blade_Runner
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> leading to a possible unexpected situation later:
>>>>> 
>>>>> POSSIBLY unexpected. If someone were under the illusion that the
>>>>> caret syntax created a new property, they would be surprised or
>>>>> disappointed at this point. The answer, surely, is to take pains,
>>>>> in writing the documentatio, to explain carefully that it does not
>>>>> do this. Your example would be a good one to use is such a
>>>>> tutorial, for example. But the fact that a feature MIGHT be
>>>>> surprising to someone who DIDNT read the tutiorials and does not
>>>>> understand it, it surely not a good argument for not including it.
>>> 
>>> I'm undecided about this feature; I haven't seen a complete proposal 
>>> yet.  There is not absolute argument one way or the other that I've seen 
>>> and it seems to come down to a value judgement.
>>> 
>>> What does not work for me in this case is the argument like
>>> 
>>> Use Case -> feature solves Use Case -> include feature.
>> 
>> Case #1
>> 
>> For one thing, it would mean that a Turtle serialization of a SPARQL DESCRIBE (at least one using a Concise Bounded Description) could be generated with a single "subject". For a describe of :gregg in the graph
>> 
>> :gregg foaf:knows :andy .
>> : andy foaf:knows :gregg .
>> 
>> could be serialized as
>> 
>> :gregg foaf:knows : andy; ^foaf:knows :danbri .
> 
> Not really relevant to your point but a CBD doesn't include statements where the described URI is the object. http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/#definition

No, not for IRIs, but step 2 does this for BNodes, including the subjects which reference them as objects. So, yes, my example doesn't strictly adhere to this, but a BNode variant would

:gregg foaf:knows _:someone; ^foaf:knows _:someone .

That said, even though I've brought forth some potential use cases, I don't feel strongly about including inverse properties myself. I'm probably a +0.5.

Gregg

> It's a good example of how this type of thing can be used to reduce the number of bytes needed to write a chunk of RDF though.
> 
>> Case #2
>> 
>> The second scenario I've seen is where several resources need to be declared as having the same type.
>> 
>> foaf:Person ^a :gregg, : andy .
>> 
>> Personally, I prefer is..of, and suggest that we include that as syntactic suggar:
>> 
>> foaf:Person is rdf:type of :gregg, :andy
>> 
>> Reads much better. (Not so much in the first use case).
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> -- 
> Steve Harris, CTO
> Garlik, a part of Experian
> +44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
> Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
> 
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 17:16:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:53 UTC