Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

Paul Gearon wrote:
> Hi Pat,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
>> actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
>> the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of
>> owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one.

fwiw, I was thinking more from a developer standpoint, hitting one 
simple spec doc and finding most of what they need to get modelling 
without being faced with OWL FULL and DL and the vast amounts of docs + 
reading. This is the main reason I personally mentioned :)

> Yes, I know that borrowing terms is allowed. Indeed, it gets used every day.
> 
> The thing is that we're talking about maybe cleaning RDF up a little.
> (emphasis on the "maybe" - though that's starting to look more
> likely). In this case, it makes sense to me that a term for equality
> would make it's way into RDFS, simply because there are a lot of use
> cases where people are sticking to just that namespace, with the
> single exception of owl:sameAs. Also from an aesthetics point of view,
> equality is such a common concept that I'm surprised it wasn't already
> lower in the stack.
> 
> Nothing in RDF *needs* to be changed. But if it does get updated, then
> I think that it would be nice to clean things a little while all the
> new features get added (such as named graphs).
> 
> Regards,
> Paul Gearon
> 
>

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 05:33:10 UTC