W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 01:07:32 -0700
Message-ID: <533D16C4.4070005@gmail.com>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On 03/31/2014 01:59 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> In actuality, defining things like owl:sameAs is indeed extending RDF.  Defining things in terms of OWL connectives also goes beyond RDF. This is different from introducing domain predicates like foaf:friends.   (Yes, it is sometimes a bit hard to figure out which side of the line one is on.)
> Thanks for clarifying, and this is indeed where we disagree.
> For me, such a line does not exist, nor was it ever defined.
> And even if there were, I don't see the need to draw it.
>
> RDF is the framework, the interpretation is semantics.
> All predicates have meaning associated with them,
> none has “more” meaning than the other;
> maybe some usually allow to infer more triples,
> but that doesn't change the framework at all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ruben

What then is RDF for you?   For example, do you consider N3 to be RDF?  Can 
the predicates be modal operators?  Can predicates have non-local effects?  
What does using owl:differentFrom in RDF commit you to?

To me, what RDF does not do is just as important and what it does do.  This 
means that RDF captures only the RDF bit of the meaning of predicates - the 
rest of their meaning remains inaccessible from RDF.  Any attempt to go beyond 
this is ... going beyond RDF and it is very important do realize this.

peter
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 08:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC