Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

If you want a hydra solution, then you should do whatever is needed to make it 
a hydra solution.

In actuality, defining things like owl:sameAs is indeed extending RDF.  
Defining things in terms of OWL connectives also goes beyond RDF. This is 
different from introducing domain predicates like foaf:friends.   (Yes, it is 
sometimes a bit hard to figure out which side of the line one is on.)


On 03/31/2014 09:26 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Peter,
> Please, let's get the discussion back
> to what we want to achieve in the first place.
> Right now, the solution is being evaluated
> on a dozen of other things that are not relevant.
> Proposal: let's discuss the whole abstract RDF container thing on,
> and solutions to make clients work at
> We're talking here about making clients able to get the members of something.
> Yes, they will need to interpret some properties.
> Just like an OWL reasoner needs to interpret owl:sameAs,
> a Hydra client needs to interpret hydra:member.
> That is how applications work.
> In no way, defining a vocabulary is extending RDF.
> RDF is a framework. I'm not adding to the framework.
> I'm proposing a simple property
>      hydra:memberOf owl:inverseProperty hydra:member.
> If you really don't like me introducing a property,
> here's an alternative way of saying the same thing:
>     </people/markus> foaf:knows _:x.
>     </people/markus/friends> hydra:member _:x.
> There you go. hydra:member was already defined,
> I'm not inventing or adding anything.
>> You want to depend on a particular reading of this non-RDF predicate, and have this reading trigger inferences.
> No I don't want any of that. Why do think I'd want that?
> Where did I say I want inferences? Where do I need them?
> Also, how could it possibly be a non-RDF predicate?
> RDF simply defines a predicate as an IRI [1].
>> Again making a significant addition to RDF.
> When did defining a vocabulary become adding to RDF?
>> Which is precisely my point.  You are using OWL, not just RDF.  If you want to do this in a way that fits in better with RDF, it would be better to add to the syntax of RDF without adding to the semantics of RDF.
> …but this has _never_ been about extending RDF in any way,
> nor has it been about only using RDF or only using OWL.
> We don't want any of that. We want:
> 1. Having a way for clients to find out the members of a specific collection
> 2. Not breaking the RDF model while doing so
> The proposed solution achieves both objectives.
> Best,
> Ruben
> [1]

Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 17:09:43 UTC