Re: Dons flame resistant (3 hours) interface about Linked Data URIs

Gee, this makes waay too much sense. Why would you *ever* want to make  
an assertion about the semantics of a URI using RDF??? Isn't that what  
HTTP is for?

Eric Hellman
President, Gluejar, Inc.
41 Watchung Plaza, #132
Montclair, NJ 07042
USA

eric@hellman.net
http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/

On Jul 10, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Benjamin Nowack wrote:

>
> On 10.07.2009 10:53:32, Toby Inkster wrote:
>> What would it mean for the file to have a dc:created property?  
>> Would the
>> value of that property be my date of birth, or would it be the date I
>> first uploaded my data?
>>
>> The classic example is that if I use the same URL to represent myself
>> and my web page, then how can I state that I am the creator of my web
>> page without also asserting that I'm my own father.
>
> By simply using two different properties?
>
> These are the typical (and correct) arguments, but they are grounded
> in an AI/logics purism(?) that *maybe* shouldn't be taken too  
> seriously
> on the public SemWeb. They are of course practically motivated as  
> well,
> but the practitioner here is someone with a reasoning background, not
> necessarily a web developer in a web agency.
>
> We could most probably use Hugh's approach/idea and still solve all
> our practical problems.
>
> Why did we give URIs to properties? To tell us what types of resources
> they relate. They should support us, not restrict us. So,
>
> twitter:bengee is me (in Web 2.0 speak)
>
> The page has a creation date:
>   twitter:bengee ex1:created "2007" .
>   (ex1:created relates a document to a date)
>
> I have a birthday:
>   twitter:bengee ex2:birthday "08-14" .
>   (ex2:birthday relates an agent to a date)
>
> The page has a creator:
>   twitter:bengee ex1:author twitter:bengee .
>   (ex1:author relates a document to an agent)
>
> I have a father:
>   twitter:bengee ex2:father "Bodo" .
>   (ex2:father relates an agent to an agent)
>
> Now, this is totally blasphemic RDF *in our current view*, but
> heck would it make publishing easy. And with properly annotated
> properties, it would be easy to detect whether a term refers to
> a document or a NIR, and the syntax is pretty obvious about whether
> we are talking about a resource or the label of a resource. And hey,
> no more arguing about whether a vcard is a person or not. And we
> could get rid of our über-complicated XFN converters ;)
>
> Simple querying works easily, directly on the instance data,
> and ontologies could be used for more automatic disambiguation.
>
> So, dc:created can't tell you whether it refers to a person or a
> document? Predicate FAIL, not Subject fail, maybe?
>
>
> This is all rather tongue-in-cheek, of course, we've been here a  
> couple
> of times, I'm happy with the current specs, and different URIs for  
> NIRs
> and docs make a lot of sense, but we as a community should be prepared
> that people will just use their homepages and OpenIDs as direct
> identifiers (XFN, anyone?). Our apps will have to deal with the  
> situation,
> and it's actually not too difficult to implement such a disambiguation
> step. When I read a blog post and drag an author link on my address  
> book,
> I want to add a person, not a page, and my address book should not say
> "Ey dude, not a person" (well, would be cool if it could, though).
>
> Benji
>
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> http://bnode.org/
> http://semsol.com/
>
>