- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:17:34 +0200
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Nathan wrote: > > You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to a universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information from data, such that: > > <x-sasha> :animalname "sasha" ; :created "2011...." . > > was read as: > > Animal(<x-sasha>) :animalname "sasha" . > Document(<x-sasha>) :created "2011...." . > > the ability to do this could be pushed on to ontologies, with domain and range and restrictions specifying universes and boundaries - but it's a big change. No its quite simple in fact, as I pointed out in a couple of e-mails in this thread. You just need to be careful when creating relations that certain relations are in fact inferred relations between primary topics. > really, different names for different things is quite simple to stick to, yes, but there are a lot of people who say it is too complicated. I don't find it so, but perhaps it is for their use cases. I say that we describe the option they like, find out what the limitations are they will fall have, and document it. Then next time we can refer others to that discovery. So limitations to look for would be limitations as to the complexity of the data created. The other limitations is that even on simple blog pages there are at least three or four things on the page. > and considering most (virtually all) documents on the web have several different elements and identifiable things, indeed. > the one page one subject thing isn't worth spending too much time focusing on as a generic use case, as any solution based on it won't apply to the web at large which is very diverse and packed full of lots of potentially identifiable things. agree. But it is one of those things that newbies feel the urge to do, and will keep on wanting to do. So perhaps for them one should have special simple ontologies or guides for how to build these ObjectDocument ontologies. In any case this seems to be the type of thing the microformats people were (are?) doing. Henry > > best, nathan Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 21:18:06 UTC