W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Last Call comments on RDFa Core (Issue-68)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:44:58 +0100
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0950FF4F-C49B-4350-888B-A9561119A8D2@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Oops, sorry, it should have been ISSUE-68

Ivan

On Dec 13, 2010, at 13:42 , Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 13:36 , Harry Halpin wrote:
> 
>>> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 11:19 +0000, Harry Halpin wrote:
>>>> To my knowledge, I have not seen a single halfway convincing usecase
>>>> where there is a reason why you would want to 'mention' a URI, i.e.
>>>> refer to it as a literal or xsd string.
>>> 
>>> Given the following:
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> @prefix con: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#> .
>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
>>> 
>>> <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i>
>>> 	con:preferredURI <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i> ;
>>> 	owl:sameAs <http://identi.ca/user/45563> .
>>> ###
>>> 
>>> An OWL-capable processor can make the following conclusion:
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> @prefix con: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#> .
>>> 
>>> <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i>
>>> 	con:preferredURI <http://identi.ca/user/45563> .
>>> ###
>>> 
>>> However, given:
>>> 
>>> ###
>>> @prefix con: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#> .
>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
>>> 
>>> <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i>
>>> 	con:preferredURI "http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i" ;
>>> 	owl:sameAs <http://identi.ca/user/45563> .
>>> ###
>>> 
>>> It will not come to a mistaken conclusion about what timbl's preferred
>>> URI for himself is.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, TimBL also gave me that example. However, that example is not
>> plausible, much less convicing.
>> 
>> It seems to be the fault of a misuse of sameas and the attendant wrong OWL
>> conclusions, again, of which I have done an analysis of, feel free to read
>> [1].  The right answer is probably not to use sameAs or OWL at all, but
>> use something like a SIOC term for accountOf.  Right now we are doing a
>> study of how most things that are inferred via using OWL over sameas are
>> wrong, our guess so far is more than half of the inferences that use
>> sameas are incorrect. Given that sameAs usage is often broken, usecases
>> involving sameAs are IMHO red herrings.
>> 
>> So, try again. Not convincing a reason for essentially doubly the number
>> of prefix terms in RDFa and making widespread vocabularies like OGP not
>> interpreted as they were intended.
>> 
>> [1] http://iswc2010.semanticweb.org/pdf/261.pdf
>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Toby A Inkster
>>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf






Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 12:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC