- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:37:18 -0500
- To: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On Apr 13, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> RDF includes a meaning for triples. > > I think this is your biggest misconception. RDF does not include any > meaning of anything. Well, that might be a tad strong. RDF does have *some* semantics, Peter, you may recall :-) > It's a framework that is entirely unbiased about > what you define. True, as long as you conform to the basic (and rather simple) RDF semantic rules. But those do impose *some* constraints. For example, the meaning of a triple can't depend on the particular syntax of the IRIs in the triple, only on what those IRIs are understood to refer to. > The meaning of statements is only inferred by the > tools that interpret the RDF. Or by other standards or conventions which extend RDF in ways that are identified by particular vocabularies, such as OWL/RDF or RDFS or SKOS, etc.., and to which the tools can be said to conform. Another way of saying the same thing, but with more of an emphasis on the ways that com,munities might agree on meanings of a vocabulary. All of these are semantic extensions of RDF, a notion defined in the RDF spec documents themselves. For myself, I am content to think of all these extensions as part of one big happy RDF family :-) Pat > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 14 April 2014 02:38:05 UTC