- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:43:29 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:10:27AM +0100, Tom Baker wrote: > Rather, what we're doing is acknowledging that people "see" or "interpret" IRIs e through particular lenses. In terms of message, the act of "seeing" or > "interpreting" an object does not imply that the object that everyone sees is > actually being transformed. Maybe something along the lines of "RDF > Interpretations" or "RDF Lenses"? > > Then if the range of rdf:inherits does indeed include things like 100 pages of > plain-text explanation, we should avoid implying that these interpretations are > by definition importable and applicable in some sort of automatic, > machine-processable way. The name should leave no doubt that this is a > documentation property. Maybe something along the lines of or > "rdf:interpretedUsing" or "rdf:lens"? It occurs to me that the "lens" metaphor works for some of the expected use cases: -- "corrective lens": I assert that somebody used a property the wrong way. Sandro's "shims" might be considered corrective lenses. -- "magnifying lens": I assert that I am using dc:creator for "composers". -- "historical lens": I assert that the "social meaning" of some property shifted at some point in time. As I picture it, given <a> rdf:lens <b> <a> is the "context", and <b> is some kind of document. Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 01:44:02 UTC