Re: URI aliases for RDF terms?

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> * Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> [2011-11-02 14:51+0000]
>> On 2011-11-02, at 14:39, Ian Davis wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>> >> OK, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of some URI being used as an alias for some other URI.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Isn't this just owl:equivalentProperty?
>>
>> Not sure, I don't know if the suggestion was that e.g.
>>
>> SELECT *
>> WHERE {
>>   ?x <http://some.example/test> ?y
>> }
>>
>> Would answer the same queries as { ?x a ?y }.
>>
>> Either way I'm not a fan. Yes, the rdf:type URI is a bit ugly, but so is foaf:name. It's too late to change it IMHO.

On the other hand schema.org may change it for us to
http://schema.org/type without us doing anything about it. It's also
worth mentioning that when we talk about widely deployed we don't
really mean widely deployed. :\

--Gavin

>
> +1
> Excruciating precision is a cost of doing business in an unambiguous domain. I think any step towards simplifying syntaxes for particular terms (rdf:type) or vocabularies (foaf:*) should be handled in ways which do not impact the RDF graph. If "http://some.example/test" is *parsed* as "www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type", then it may as well be spelled "a".
>
>
>> - Steve
>>
>> --
>> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
>> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
>> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
>> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
>> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
>>
>>
>
> --
> -ericP
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 18:40:08 UTC