- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:27:04 -0400
- To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- CC: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 03/20/2013 06:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: > To me, that seems to lead us back to the earlier discussion > (rathole?) about owl:sameAs > > Yes, we can model what we are doing at an arbitrary level of > sophistication, but no, we may not want to. > > I tend to a view that there are diminishing returns in terms of > levels of indirection here! +1 This is part of the reason why, IMO, it is folly to judge RDF data in terms of absolute truth. The more relevant criterion is *usefulness*. And that depends on the application: crude, simple data may be very useful for many applications, even if it is useless to others because it is "incorrect" (according to some notion of "incorrect"). David
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 00:27:33 UTC