W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: URI aliases for RDF terms?

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:05:28 -0400
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20111102160526.GA20693@w3.org>
* Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> [2011-11-02 14:51+0000]
> On 2011-11-02, at 14:39, Ian Davis wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> >> OK, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of some URI being used as an alias for some other URI.
> >> 
> > 
> > Isn't this just owl:equivalentProperty?
> 
> Not sure, I don't know if the suggestion was that e.g.
> 
> SELECT *
> WHERE {
>   ?x <http://some.example/test> ?y
> }
> 
> Would answer the same queries as { ?x a ?y }.
> 
> Either way I'm not a fan. Yes, the rdf:type URI is a bit ugly, but so is foaf:name. It's too late to change it IMHO.

+1
Excruciating precision is a cost of doing business in an unambiguous domain. I think any step towards simplifying syntaxes for particular terms (rdf:type) or vocabularies (foaf:*) should be handled in ways which do not impact the RDF graph. If "http://some.example/test" is *parsed* as "www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type", then it may as well be spelled "a".


> - Steve
> 
> -- 
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 17:42:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT