W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

Re: Instant RDF

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:00 -0700
Message-ID: <39ABE79C.5D2286D5@robustai.net>
To: Gerard Maas <gerard.maas@alcatel.be>
CC: RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Gerard Maas wrote:

> Sure I'm not modelling the "shouldn't" the right way. I omited all
> NS to go home earlier. I know it doesn't make it (but I  tried!),
> and I see your point: my statement was too general (Friday eve
> circumstances). Nevertheless, the idea that taking XML into RDF is
> 'narrowing' doesn't stand (my opinion of course).
> AFAIK, the "world" of XML and the "world" of RDF are mutually
> inclusive.

Interesting, I made a graph of this too and put it up side by side wit
yours at [1].  Is my graph semantically interoperable with yours -even
though it is quite different?  The big difference is that in my graph
I allow any statement to be an object, so that it is not necessary for
me to reify so frequently.  This also brings up the question:  How are
reified statements interoprable with non reified statements?  Note
that in my graph they are interoperable.  And of course that brings up
the point - what does semantic interoperablilty really mean (if
anything)?

[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/Yellow_Snow.html

Incidentally, what graphical tool do you use to make your graphs ?
Doing these by hand is getting pretty tedious.

--
Seth Russell
http://RobustAI.net/MyNetwork/index.html
http://robustAI.net/MyNetwork/StickeyCyberMolecules.html
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 12:35:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT