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: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:20:11 +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: <C12691F0-FE13-46ED-9B63-BA12160A66BB@ugent.be>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Hi Peter,

> Ok, I describe ex:BaseballPlayer as
> ex:BaseballPlayer owl:equivalentClass _:x .
> _:x owl:intersectionOf ( ex:Person  [ owl:onProperty ex:plays; owl:hasValue ex:Baseball ] )
> 
> Is this RDF?

Yes.

> Should all consumers of RDF understand all of this?

Yes, depending on your interpretation of "understand".
All of them should parse the triples. This is where RDF ends.

Those that can interpret OWL will be able to infer additional things.
This is OWL and not part of the RDF model
(and thus also not extending the RDF model).

    <h1>Baseball player</h1>
doesn't extend HTML.
It just applies HTML to describe a baseball player.

>> No, quantification is not part of RDF.
> 
> Why not?

It is not in the spec.

> I could certainly define an encoding of quanfification in RDF and use it to define predicates.

You indeed can.

>> Predicates may not influence non-related triples,
>> however, other triples might be influenced through a cascade of relations.
> 
> Why not?  I can define predicates however I want, after all?

Because, by definition of "related",
if your predicate is defined to influence a certain (kind of) triple,
that triple is related to the usage of the predicate.

>>> 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.
> 
> What model?

The RDF model.

> Do  you mean that all you care about is the abstract syntax?

No.

> What about rdf:type?  What about rdfs:domain?  Do all consumers of RDF need to commit to the standard meaning of these predicates?

Yes.

>> RDF is just the model. Giving a predicate meaning is not extending the model.
> 
> 
> How so?  What else is giving a predicate meaning besides extending the  model?

It defines something on top of the model.
Building a home with bricks does not extend the bricks; it uses them.

> I am really struggling to understand your view of RDF.

Likewise. But maybe further discussing this doesn't really help the community.
My view on RDF works for what I want to do and in my opinion, it's by no means an unreasonable view.
But there might be other views… and that might just be fine.

Best,

Ruben
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2014 00:20:55 UTC

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