Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 30 June 2010 21:14, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>  Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
>>>>> Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is
>>>>>> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL:
>>>>>
>>>>>   # An rdf:List that loops around...
>>>>>
>>>>>   <#mylist> a rdf:List ;
>>>>>       rdf:first <#Alice> ;
>>>>>       rdf:next <#mylist> .
>>>>>
>>>>>   # A looping, branching mess...
>>>>>
>>>>>   <#anotherlist> a rdf:List ;
>>>>>       rdf:first <#anotherlist> ;
>>>>>       rdf:next <#anotherlist> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They might be messy, but they are *possible* structures using pointers,
>>>> which is what the RDF vocabulary describes.  Its just about impossible to
>>>> guarantee that messes can't happen when all you are doing is describing
>>>> structures in an open-world setting. But I think the cure is to stop
>>>> thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So, there is dung
>>>> in the road. Walk round it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Could we also apply that to the 'subjects as literals' general discussion
>>> that's going on then?
>>>
>>> For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data'
>>> practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd
>>> immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }.
>>>
>>> Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with
>>> 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few simple
>>> notes on best practise for linked data etc.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO an emphatic NO.
>>
>> RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have
>> Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to
>> Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor
>> Docs/Resources). An "Identifier" != Literal.
>>
>
> What ARE you talking about? You sound like someone reciting doctrine.
>
> Literals in RDF are just as much 'identifiers' or 'names' as URIs are. They
> identify their value, most clearly and emphatically. They denote in exactly
> the same way that URIs denote. "23"^^xsd:number   is about as good an
> identification of the number twenty-three as you are ever likely to get in
> any notational system since ancient Babylonia.
>

You can also do this:

http://km.aifb.kit.edu/projects/numbers/web/n23


>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
>
>> If you are in a situation where you can't or don't want to mint an HTTP
>> based Name, simply use a URN, it does the job.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen       President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web:
>> http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>