- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:09:57 +0000
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Thanks Henry. Just to be clear on one point: On 19 Jun 2011, at 12:44, Henry Story wrote: <snip /> >> >> When we help people publish, it really is tough to engage them long enough to care about the complex issues, and they often get it wrong - I am engaged with quite a few people who are now publishing serious amounts of interesting RDF where I have contacted them to try to help. The status of the conversations is that they have fixed what they can, and are now thinking (for a long time) about how they might configure their systems to do it properly - but they may never get there. I will still want to use their RDF. > > yes, in these case by case scenarios it is easy for you to write special case filters. And we could do the > same thing with HTML whenever we browse the web too. But the web had an application: the browser that lead to > feedback effects that increased the coherence of the system. > <snip /> But I don't write special case filters - if I did it would not consider it Semantic Web. I simply follow my nose to use the URI (or in fact usually via an owl:sameas in a sameas store), and they work. It all works because my code that consumes the retrieved RDF to build the data enrichment by inference (things like the communities of practice), and things like my fresnel lenses, restrict any ambiguity by looking for the predicates, etc. they care about. RDF can be a long way short of what we want it to be without having to treat it as special cases.
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 13:10:44 UTC