W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [WRLD] issue from Jena-dev

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:01:25 +0100
Message-ID: <406BE875.5030401@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Nick Gibbins <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Nick Gibbins wrote:

> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>>I'm not sure if this counts as best practice, but we use a simulated
>>>stochastic process to determine which Semantic Web language is being used
>>>by a particular file. You can see a demo of our technique at:
>>I think that qualifies under the "sorting out the mess that we've made"
>>intended as an RDFS file, not OWL Full?
>>(The semantics differ ...)
> I think that this rather proves Ian's point - I'm using Sean's species
> validator behind the scenes (and a few simple and no doubt defeasible
> heuristics), and it reports it as OWL Full. Maybe the question should
> instead have been "what is the best practice for *indicating* which
> semantic-web language and encoding is being used"?

Named graphs could do that ... but that's still a research topic.
(Discussed on SWIG)

If we have a URI for the graph, then we can make statements about it, such 
as its intended assertional status, its intended semantic theory etc.


>>It made me laugh though.
> So justifying the (minimal) effort...
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 05:04:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:30:53 UTC