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

Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:57:26 +0900
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>
Message-Id: <58643A80-D9C6-4C8E-992F-420085E5CFAD@ugent.be>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> What then is RDF for you?

The Resource Description Framework.
It is a framework to describe resources,
and this includes predicates.
Anybody can define predicates the way they want,
otherwise RDF is useless to express semantics.

> For example, do you consider N3 to be RDF?

No, quantification is not part of RDF.

> Can predicates have non-local effects?

A predicate indicates a relationship between an object and a subject.
What this relationship means is described in the ontology to which the predicate belongs.

Predicates may not influence non-related triples,
however, other triples might be influenced through a cascade of relations.

> What does using owl:differentFrom in RDF commit you to?

It says that two things are different.
Clients that can interpret this predicate can apply its meaning.
This application does not change the model.

> 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.

RDF is just the model. Giving a predicate meaning is not extending the model.

Best,

Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 07:58:16 UTC

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