Re: Tentative contribution to the "URI issue"

Remarks like "+1" and "agreed" don't solve technical issues.
If this is all that you had to say then I don't see what is it
that you said :-)

> >> The question is how does one differentiate URIs from strings.
> >> Are they strings? Should they be? If all we (collectively) want
> >> is to write "http://jos@debrujin.com/salary"("2020-11-22", "E100000")
> >> where "..." are strings, then there is no problem.
> >> But I don't think think this is what we collectively had in mind.
> >> I believe we wanted to distinguish URIs from strings and other types of
> >> constants.
> >
> > Distinguishing symbolic constants identified by a URI from literal
> > constants such as strings and integers still seems like a syntax issue
> > addressable at that level in the way proposed earlier.
> +1 Indeed. This issue is completely orthogonal to the issue of sorts.
> >
> > The conceptual proposal is that we *only* have symbolic constants
> > identified by a URI and literal constants (strings, integers etc) and
> > only the former are allowed to have boolean and arrow sorts.
> >
> >> There is also an issue of signatures when we will start allowing or
> >> disallowing certain individuals to play roles of predicates, functions,
> >> etc.  We cannot assign a signature to any given constant, so sorts
> >> could be
> >> one of the grouping mechanisms here. For instance, if a dialect
> >> (like, say,
> >> WSML) allows only URIs to be concepts then only the constants of the
> >> sort
> >> rif:uri will have Boolean signatures.
> >
> > What I was asking for in the meeting and my earlier message was what's
> > the use case where we would allow something *other* than symbolic
> > constants identified by a URI to be used as concepts?  The point being
> > that I'm not convinced there is one.
> >
> > I can see the value in having those symbolic constants be sorted but
> > they would still be identified by URIs. [*]
> Agreed.
> >
> > In which case perhaps all we are asking is "what's the name for the
> > top sort?".
> >
> > If so then in RDF terms that is rdfs:Resource - everything in your
> > domain is an rdfs:Resource including literals, people, unicorns and
> > web information resources.
> >
> > If you want a sort which is disjoint from literals (strings, integers
> > etc) then from an OWL/DL point of view that would be owl:Thing.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > [*] Indeed in a sorted semantic web compatible dialect then one might
> > identify RIF sorts with RDF Classes so in that dialect you could say
> > things like:
> >
> >   all symbols of rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty have a RIF boolean
> >   signature:
> >      OWL:Thing * rdfs:Literal
> >
> > but you could also then have application-specific sorts defined using
> > RDFS/OWL ontologies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
> +43 512 507 6475         jos.debruijn@deri.org
> DERI                      http://www.deri.org/
> ----------------------------------------------
> Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise 
> to complex and intelligent behavior.  Complex 
> rules and regulations give rise to simple and 
> stupid behavior.
>  - Dee Hock
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:58:32 UTC