W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 15:36:16 +0100
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Message-Id: <9E710887-7CFC-43F5-8E77-D587C27D6760@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 12 Jun 2011, at 00:51, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Well, I am sympathetic to not defending HTTP-range-14 and nobody ever, ever again even mentioning "information resource", but I don't think we can just make this go away by ignoring it. What do we say when a URI is used both to retrieve, um sorry, identify, a Web page but is also used to refer to something which is quite definitely not a web page?

Then we study the specific data provider to figure out if the published assertions are about the web page or the topic of the web page, or apply various kinds of heuristics to figure it out.

If we are logicians, then we say: “Oh, how clever, they are punning.”

> What do we say when the range of a property is supposed to be, say, people, but its considered OK to insert a string to stand in place of the person?

Well, I can define a class that contains both people (in the foaf:Person sense) and names of people (that is, string literals). This is not pretty, but it is pragmatic. A data consumer can use rules or SPARQL CONSTRUCT to make the shape of the data more uniform.


> In the first case we can just say that identifying and reference are distinct, and that one expects the web page to provide information about the referent, which is a nice comfortable doctrine but has some holes in it. (Chiefly, how then do we actually refer to a web page?) But the second is more serious, seems to me, as it violates the basic semantic model underlying all of RDF through OWL and beyond. Maybe we need to re-think this model, but if so then we really ought to be doing that re-thinking in the RDF WG right now, surely? Just declaring an impatient agnosticism and refusing to discuss these issues does not get things actually fixed here.
> Pat
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Sunday, 12 June 2011 14:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC