Re: OWL-DL and linked data

2008/6/10 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>:
> Andrew
>
> I see this as yet another aspect of the fact that the current semantic
> languages pile lacks a way to express the general notion of coreference. The
> URI  a:bar, published properly as linked data with RDF description, has the
> same referent as b:foo, which identifies a plain vanilla HTML page, but a
> stable and authoritative one.  It's been discussed already many times that
> we lack something between owl:sameAs (too strong) and rdfs:seeAlso (too
> weak). Your problem is quite the same. rdfs:isDefinedBy limits you to a
> certain representation framework (RDF).

In these previous discussions has it been mentioned that these
vocabularies seem to be excluding definitional resources?  Is linking
data supposed to include other representations?  I mean other
languages like Topic Maps or English should be part of idea of linked
data or is it RDF/RDFS only?  Is it suppose to include OWL-DL?  It
almost doesn't matter that they're dead ends now - surely that will
change over time as we convert Topic Maps, English or whatever into
RDF.  I'm not sure about the RDFS and OWL differences.

If it has been discussed before is there a reference?

> I was yesterday updating the data at http://www.lingvoj.org, and thought
> again that I had not the proper expressivity to link e.g.,
> http://www.lingvoj.org/lang/da to more authoritative but not RDF-friendly
> URIs like http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=dan or
> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=dan (this one seems to be
> down when I write).
>
> We can wish and be proactive towards their publishers to have such resources
> published as linked data, but meanwhile we are stuck.
> More and more I think that adding such expressivity to the langauge pile is
> badly needed. We need RDFSemiotics to become operational.
> See: http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFSemiotics
>

This seems to follow my ideas quite closely (I have read it so maybe
this is where I got it from).  Making it an object property is
definitely something I've been thinking about.  But the link seems
clearly to be an annotation property not an object property.  I guess
it can be a property of the object but it doesn't seem necessarily
part of it - that is it can be safely ignored - it's an optional extra
like rdfs:seeAlso and rdfs:isDefinedBy.

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 10:49:37 UTC