- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:54:04 +0100
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Semantic-Web@W3.Org Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 5 Oct 2007, at 09:57, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] > 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. [snip] > 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? [snip] You might go back and look at the various MCF proposals for some insight. However, I think overall it's most hysterical raisons. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 09:52:46 UTC