W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:36:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1001150136m2e6be1dm1174a2de6fad759c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
2010/1/15 Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>:

> PS: Actually there is one thing which would aid bootstrapped nature of RDF:
> ex:contains rdf:type rdf:Property ;
>  rdfs:comment "property for stating that a reified triple is part of
> graph" ;
>  rdfs:range rdf:Statement .

That's rather neat.

Pat, I must admit I'm finding myself more aligned with Jiří's attitude
here, I don't really see a problem with RDF being a LISP-like
language, though I take the point of it being declarative rather than
procedural. We do have things like XSLT to guide us (which isn't too
dissimilar to SPARQL CONSTRUCTs).

While there does seem to be utility to OWL/OWL2 and full-blown DLs in
general, I would posit that the thing that is more immediate is tying
this stuff to the Web, instead of using programming cycles to discover
inferences, doing a HTTP GET and getting more information that way.

Clearly it's possible to expose RDBMSs as triples, but ordered Lists &
things are still a pain - might it not be possible to sprinkle a
little more sugar over the syntax to make things like n-ary
relations/n-tuples more straightforward, without any major hacking on
the model? (caveat - IANAL either).


Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 09:37:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:04 UTC