- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:32:14 -0700
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 04/09/2014 12:57 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> What then is RDF for you? > The Resource Description Framework. > It is a framework to describe resources, > and this includes predicates. > Anybody can define predicates the way they want, > otherwise RDF is useless to express semantics. Ok, I describe ex:BaseballPlayer as ex:BaseballPlayer owl:equivalentClass _:x . _:x owl:intersectionOf ( ex:Person [ owl:onProperty ex:plays; owl:hasValue ex:Baseball ] ) Is this RDF? Should all consumers of RDF understand all of this? >> For example, do you consider N3 to be RDF? > No, quantification is not part of RDF. Why not? I could certainly define an encoding of quanfification in RDF and use it to define predicates. > >> Can predicates have non-local effects? > A predicate indicates a relationship between an object and a subject. > What this relationship means is described in the ontology to which the predicate belongs. > > Predicates may not influence non-related triples, > however, other triples might be influenced through a cascade of relations. Why not? I can define predicates however I want, after all? > >> What does using owl:differentFrom in RDF commit you to? > It says that two things are different. > Clients that can interpret this predicate can apply its meaning. > This application does not change the model. What model? Do you mean that all you care about is the abstract syntax? What about rdf:type? What about rdfs:domain? Do all consumers of RDF need to commit to the standard meaning of these predicates? > >> To me, what RDF does not do is just as important and what it does do. This means that RDF captures only the RDF bit of the meaning of predicates - the rest of their meaning remains inaccessible from RDF. Any attempt to go beyond this is … going beyond RDF and it is very important do realize this. > RDF is just the model. Giving a predicate meaning is not extending the model. How so? What else is giving a predicate meaning besides extending the model? > > Best, > > Ruben I am really struggling to understand your view of RDF. peter
Received on Saturday, 12 April 2014 20:32:48 UTC