- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:43:05 -0500
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, 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. > > 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. Point taken. I agree, except that I think equality is much trickier on the Web than we ever realized until recently. > > 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). Agree. Pat > > Regards, > Paul Gearon > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 05:44:50 UTC