W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:18:37 +0200 (EET)
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001160442070.4722@lakka.kapsi>
On 2010-01-15, Pat Hayes wrote:

> It's not that simple.

My very point is that too. Thus if you want to get things done at all, 
you have to *make* it simple. By brute force if need be.

My relapse into an assassination fantasy was only half a joke, there.

> And the semantics were very clear from the beginning. We weren't in a 
> confused muddle or anything like that. But the devil, as they say, is 
> in the details.

I know very well. What I'm saying, to hell with that particular devil. 
It don't need no stinkin axiomatic semantics. Sure, that'll royally fuck 
everything up if you try to reason on top of hte thing. But then, that 
ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and those folks will be able to retreat 
into their own, purer-than-pure trenches/namespaces when they want to.

> The semantics of RDF, as defined in the spec, are about as "standard" 
> as you could wish for. They are based on ideas which have been 
> textbook stuff since the 1930s.

As far as description logics go, let's say 50's to 70's. I do know what 
we're talking about. The problem is more about why people talk so much 
about it. In my mind silence translates into understanding of the 
semantics. More talk about them then translates into possible refined 
semantics, and/or even discord over the base semantics.

> If anything, we may have erred by not being more imagiative, IMO.

In fact much agreed.

> Part of our problem here is that we aren't consolidating an existing 
> body of expertise. Rather, we are in the strange position of needing 
> to define the standard to be used in a new technology which cannot 
> even come into existence until the standard is created and widely 
> accepted. Maybe we shouldn't refer to them as 'standards'.

Which is precisely why I'd go with the "profane" version, first. Simply 
don't aim at any specific solution, but let the market decide, at least 
at first. As always in the online world, adoption comes first. Good 
standards of behavior come second or third, if ever. Really the only 
thing you can do is to point the way a little bit, always using 
technical means only.

I mean, the rooster's gonna run. You can pinch it, gun it down or let it 
roost. Any which way, you're gonna come up with chicks or one 
dissapointing capon. I'd choose the chicks no matter the color.
-- 
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Received on Saturday, 16 January 2010 03:19:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:33 GMT