W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language updated

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:54:04 +0100
Message-Id: <013D29C4-1997-452E-BB9E-8180D43A1DA9@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Semantic-Web@W3.Org Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On 5 Oct 2007, at 09:57, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Me too.
> But doesn't anyone feel inconvenient with the idea of making Turtle
> dependent on OWL vocabulary?

No. It's not a vocabulary in the sense that FOAF is a (domain)  
vocabulary. It's a bit of syntax.

> I thought that Turtle has been intended to be a
> pure RDF serialization?

Pure what? Pure RDF graphs with favor to no predefined uris? oops,  
there's "a".

>   Ok, one could say that 'owl:sameAs' is just some
> URI,

That's true, though it has a pre-defined semantics.

> which happens to share its namespace prefix

"Namespace prefix" is not a concept in XML namespaces. RDF et al do  
not have a notion of namespaces other than this common locution about  
namespace prefix which means something like "the leading part of a  
URI that corresponds to something which standardly appears as the  
identifer of an XML namespace and may actual function that way for  
some things like rdf:about".

> with that of OWL... would
> be an opinion.
> Now while I think about this: Why is there no 'rdf:sameAs' in RDF?

Why is there no rdf:imports? Why is it rdfs:subClassOf, etc.?

These divisions were arbitrary, IMHO. I personally would rather do  
away with all of them because 1) they make the syntax more  
complicated (I hate getting all the namespace declarations right) and  
2) people read a lot of significance into them.

> Of course, if there really was an 'rdf:sameAs' in RDF, one would  
> than also
> have to think about supporting 'sameAs' in RDF-S, too, as a reasoning
> feature (not necessarily of course, I know). And this might have  
> led to some
> difficulties. So 'sameAs' might really have been /intentionaly/  
> left out of
> RDF in favour of an analog OWL concept in the future. Any SemWeb  
> historian
> here, who can explain this to me?

You might go back and look at the various MCF proposals for some  
insight. However, I think overall it's most hysterical raisons.

Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 09:52:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:03 UTC