Re: Profiles intro

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Profiles intro
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:01:40 +0100

> On 10 Apr 2008, at 14:06, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: Profiles intro
> > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:11:30 +0100
> >
> >>
> >> On 10 Apr 2008, at 13:46, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bijan,
> >>>
> >>> let us not start a row here. I may have been a bit harsh in my
> >> reactions, Carsten hit a nerve:-) I do not think we should go down the
> >> road of differentiating among profiles on the basis of whether they are
> >> RDF-ish or not. Ie, can we set this aside and get back to the original
> >> issue? :-)
> >>
> >> Ok, I'll rephrase your point: Regardless of whether it's true or not,
> >> RDFishness is not helpful in distinguishing fragments and may cause
> >> extreme negative reactions. Thus, we should find other points for
> >> guidance.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bijan.
> >
> > Hmm.  This seems like ignoring the elephant in the bathroom.
> 
> You say that like it's a bad thing. If the elephant will only panic and
> poop all over the place if it thinks you're watching it, then ignoring
> it is the *right* thing to do.
> 
> Heck, if the elephant will flush and doesn't break anything, it's
> welcome to use my bathroom without my knowledge anytime it wants!

Yeah, but if the elephant wants to treat my bidet (rdfs:subClassOf) as a
toilet (rdf:Class) then I do care.

> Seriously, it's clear that differentiating on "RDFishness" without a lot
> of discussion is going to cause allergic reaction even in sensible
> people. So let's be cautious not just to be understood, but not to be
> misunderstood.

Agreed, but this is different than not using "RDFishness" as a differentiator.

> Cheers,
> Bijan.

peter

PS: What is an RD Fish?

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 14:11:19 UTC