- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:35:11 -0500
- To: "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Seth Russell'" <russell.seth@gmail.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:02 PM > To: Geoff Chappell; Danny Ayers > Cc: Seth Russell; semantic-web@w3.org > Subject: RE: true/false in RDF? > > > > unspecified? And of course, all of it means I *need* RDFS (and > OWL), > > > *everywhere*. Why take such a huge dependency if you don't need to? > > > > So if you have 8 boolean properties, you need a minimum of 8 classes > (or > > If I use Boolean URIs, I don't need *any* classes. > > I'm struggling to see the value in modeling this in any way that > requires more than zero classes (or OWL) to be defined. No, but you need 8 properties - take your pick. I guess it depends upon what your goals are. You can use RDF as just a graph representation format without making use of any inference - the value then comes from the simplicity of the model, the ease of aggregation, and to some extent the ability of URIs as names to ground the semweb in the web. But you still end up with the semantics embedded in applications rather than the data (i.e. machines can't really do any meaningful reasoning). OTOH, if you want to begin to migrate some meaning out of the application and into the data, you have to try to model your data in ways that will allow the machines to perform meaningful reasoning. Given the current state of semweb technologies, that means using rdf/owl ontologies because that's the only way to license inferences. Hopefully more expressive mechanisms (e.g. rules) will join the party at some point so we don't have to continue to force feed everything into a classification problem :-) - Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 23:35:18 UTC