- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:20:13 +0200
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Thanks Danny for helping these threads find each other. I had a long conversation with Sean B. Palmer on the topic on #swig, of which I highlighted some elements here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0066.html ------ Is it really "Semantic" content neg that we want? That is only part of the problem. Imagine I only understand the atomOwl vocab [1] and I expect this <> a :CategoryList; :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; :term "dog" ]; :category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; :term "house" ]. but I receive this <> a :McDonaldCategoryList; :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; :McTerm "dog" ]; :McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>; :McTerm "house" ]. Where in fact :McDonaldCategoryList owl:sameAs :CategoryList . :McCategory owl:sameAs :category . :McScheme owl:sameAs :scheme . :McTerm owl:sameAs :term . In that case both documents are in fact semantically identical. So what one wants is either - a way to specify the *vocabulary* the client understands, and have the sender send back content only in that vocabulary, or at least add some mappings from its vocab to the one understood by the client. - or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but also that one will be able to interpret them. Henry [1] http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/ On 24 Jul 2006, at 11:39, Danny Ayers wrote: > Oops, I was a couple of posts out in the first link, should be a > little less baffling with this one: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/ > 0139.html > > (thanks Henry!) > > On 7/24/06, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote: >> Seems to be a little thread convergence going on. Gmail doesn't seem >> to allow in-reply-to on two posts, so instead: >> >> Re: BioRDF: URI Best Practices >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/ >> 0141.html >> >> Re: expectations of vocabulary >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0068.html >> >> [I've at least one ulterior motive in wanting to see this discussion >> evolve further. When I get time I want to play with the idea of >> "semantic cookies" - put the URI of the agent-user's FOAF profile >> in a >> Link: header, server adjusts response appropriately] >> >> Cheers, >> Danny. >> >> -- >> >> http://dannyayers.com >> > > > -- > > http://dannyayers.com
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 10:20:37 UTC