- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:39:58 -0600
- To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Nov 2, 2009, at 5:12 AM, Damian Steer wrote: > > On 1 Nov 2009, at 17:51, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything? >> OWL 2 added a bunch of stuff to OWL that users wanted and >> implementors >> were willing to tackle. Are there things like that around RDF? >> >> My own answer is in a recent blog post: >> http://decentralyze.com/2009/10/30/rdf-2-wishlist/ >> >> What's yours? > > I did a quick talk at TPAC last year: Do you have slides/text available? > > * Deprecate RDF reification. Issue warnings, write document to > explain problems. > * Deprecate collections (Alt, Bag, Seq). See above. > * Serialise all graphs. Let rdf/xml use property URI: > <rdf:rel rdf:prop=”http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name”>Damian Steer</ > rdf:rel> > * Serialise named graphs (although I'm not super keen in general): > * Simple envelope: <document name="foo" type="application/ > turtle">...</document> > * Sparql GSPO to dump datasets > * etc > * Deprecate rdf:id. Make about and resource synonyms. > * Make bnode unlabelled, rather than existentially quantified var. Hmm, not at all obvious to me what this distinction amounts to. Unlabelled *is* existentially quantified, to all semantic purposes. Unfortunately, RIF has muddied this water by putting in meaningless distinctions. > * Prefixes: warn if some standard set not 'correct'. Have 'grab all' > namespace. > * Lang _and_ type. Reason for exclusivity lost in mists of time. > * Simple rule language. Not sure RIF has delivered that? > * Literals as subjects. Not that useful, SPARQL allows it. > * Bnodes as predicates. See above. Does SPARQL allow it? > * RDF/XML inverse properties. Make writing more pleasant. > * Equivalence relations. Seems like every use of sameAs is incorrect. > > I also liked Pat's keynote as ISWC. Alas, he didn't have much to say > on the last issue. > There wasn't time. I'll tweet when Ive got the slides on that topic posted, hopefully soon. In brief: there are at least 4 distinct notions of same-but-not-sameAs Ive managed to identify so far, and Im sure there will be more. Bottom line: no single solution will work, so no RDF2 magic bullet. But Im sure we can do something useful. +1 on everything else in your list. Pat > Damian > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 16:40:35 UTC