- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:26:22 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-hydra@w3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Peter, Please, let's get the discussion back to what we want to achieve in the first place. Right now, the solution is being evaluated on a dozen of other things that are not relevant. Proposal: let's discuss the whole abstract RDF container thing on public-lod@w3.org, and solutions to make clients work at public-hydra@w3.org. We're talking here about making clients able to get the members of something. Yes, they will need to interpret some properties. Just like an OWL reasoner needs to interpret owl:sameAs, a Hydra client needs to interpret hydra:member. That is how applications work. In no way, defining a vocabulary is extending RDF. RDF is a framework. I'm not adding to the framework. I'm proposing a simple property hydra:memberOf owl:inverseProperty hydra:member. If you really don't like me introducing a property, here's an alternative way of saying the same thing: </people/markus> foaf:knows _:x. </people/markus/friends> hydra:member _:x. There you go. hydra:member was already defined, I'm not inventing or adding anything. > You want to depend on a particular reading of this non-RDF predicate, and have this reading trigger inferences. No I don't want any of that. Why do think I'd want that? Where did I say I want inferences? Where do I need them? Also, how could it possibly be a non-RDF predicate? RDF simply defines a predicate as an IRI [1]. > Again making a significant addition to RDF. When did defining a vocabulary become adding to RDF? > Which is precisely my point. You are using OWL, not just RDF. If you want to do this in a way that fits in better with RDF, it would be better to add to the syntax of RDF without adding to the semantics of RDF. …but this has _never_ been about extending RDF in any way, nor has it been about only using RDF or only using OWL. We don't want any of that. We want: 1. Having a way for clients to find out the members of a specific collection 2. Not breaking the RDF model while doing so The proposed solution achieves both objectives. Best, Ruben [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-predicate
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 16:27:00 UTC