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

Re: Subjects as Literals

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:57:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4C338AA3.8070806@deri.org>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
I'd like to apologize in advance for being sarcastic, especially since I 
have really nothing against Henry... ;)


Le 06/07/2010 19:45, Henry Story a écrit :
>
> This would be possible to say. The problem is that there would be no
> way on earth that anyone could come to an agreement as to what kind
> of property "lit" was. Everyone could make up defend their choice. And
> where there is no right or wrong, there is no meaning. Hence the above
> is undecidable.
>
> What is the difference between the above and
>
>     foaf:knows a rdf:Property .

What is the difference between the above and

	foaf:lit a rdf:Property .

Well, we can dereference it and /not/ find out what it means. This is 
possible to say. The problem is that there is no way on earth that 
anyone can come to an agreement as to what kind of property foaf:lit is. 
Everyone can make up defend their choice. And where there is no right or 
wrong, there is no meaning. Hence, the above is undecidable.

And therefore, URIs as subjects should be disallowed... ;)

> Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
> the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
> should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning.
>
> 	Henry
>

Cheers,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Post-doctoral researcher at:
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
IDA Business Park
Lower Dangan
Galway, Ireland
antoine.zimmermann@deri.org
http://vmgal34.deri.ie/~antzim/
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 19:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC