W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Asunto: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:54:29 -0800
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52B6B530@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam-www-rdf-interest@aka.mcc.id.au>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

True, you can define a mapping, and that is nice to have if you get
stuck in the inevitable situation where two different people use
different terms to mean the same thing.  But it's even nicer to just use
a term that others are more likely to understand in the first place.
IOW, the ability to map between terms is a feature to be resilient in
the face of antisocial vocabularies rather than an excuse to be
antisocial.

> Joshua Allen:
> > Well, if you want to tell someone that you are feeling cheerful, you
can
> > just choose to use an existing word like 'cheerful', or you can
invent a
> > new one.  Inventing a new word and then having to explain to
everyone
> > who asks that "My new word really means 'cheerful'" is bound to
annoy
> > and is not very sociable.  If, on the other hand, you don't care
whether
> > or not someone else understands what you are saying, because it's
for
> > your own consumption only, then you are also not very sociable.
> 
> But isn't one of the major things about the semantic web that you can
> declare two different URI predicates to mean the same thing (with OWL
> or something) and then RDF processors will just understand it?
> 
> Sure it may not be the best idea to start off with a complete
different
> vocabulary, but as soon as someone writes some RDF that equates some
> terms then everything is fine.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 19:54:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT