W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4]

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:22:52 +0200
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B884D65C.D30C%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-05 0:06, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote:

> Patrick,
> 
> I understood the question OK.  I just don't agree that this:
> [[[
>> One should be able to merge graphs where folks have employed the same
>> vocabulary, regardless of idiom used, without concern for conflict.
> ]]]
> Has to be an overriding concern.

It becomes a major concern in a context where one wishes
to syndicate knowledge from a very broad range of sources
and one's application semantics is based on a commonly used
ontology and one does not wish to be burdened with which
idioms various sources are using, only that they are using
a common vocabulary.

If we have two vocabularies then we also have to have two
schemas (or more) to relate pairs of vocabularies (e.g.
MARC and DC) thus we have alot more overhead to using
RDF than before, when we only had to worry about one
vocabulary.

If we have a single vocabulary but have to scan and
convert all graphs being syndicated, then we have both
more work to do for the implementation and greater risk
of processing error.

Again, I'm not saying it won't work, I'm saying it is
cumbersome, and unless it is the only choice, we should
try to avoid cumbersome solutions.

In order to achieve critical mass of knowledge being
interchanged between semantic web agents, we need
to make RDF as lean and mean as we can while still
getting the job done.

Right?

> The rest, I agree with.

Cool ;-)

Patrick


> --
> 
> At 11:57 PM 2/4/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> On 2002-02-04 22:54, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> At 08:01 PM 2/4/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>>> To get clarity and closure on this:
>>>> 
>>>>    ASSERTION: Use of both S/A+B idioms will require two versions
>>>>               of PRISM, DC, MARC, ONIX, etc., one version for
>>>>               each idiom, and adoption of S/A+B will require
>>>>               the maintainers of those ontologies to create
>>>>               and managae dual versions in order
>>>>               for their ontologies to be used with RDF by
>>>>               communities employing both idioms concurrently,
>>>>               or to merge RDF knowledge expressed using
>>>>               both idioms.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you (or does anyone) disagree?
>>> 
>>> I disagree.  Under S, one of version each application (ontology) will do
>>> fine, as long as they don't use the same vocabulary in conflicting
>>> ways.  And software that wants to syndicate across systems that use
>>> different idioms must know about the different vocabularies being used to
>>> be able to translate between them.
>>> 
>>> It may be a little messy, but I think it's quite doable, which is why I can
>>> live with S even if I think it's worth a little effort to see if we can't
>>> find an even cleaner solution.
>> 
>> I'm not sure you fully understood the question.
>> 
>> To use the same vocabulary with both the S-A and S-B idioms is, per
>> my understanding, to use it in conflicting ways.
>> 
>> One should be able to merge graphs where folks have employed the same
>> vocabulary, regardless of idiom used, without concern for conflict.
>> 
>> If they can't do that, then either they can't use both idioms freely
>> or they need to vocabularies.
>> 
>> Right?
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
>> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
>> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
> Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
> 
> 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 17:21:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:04 EDT