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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:02:36 -0600
Cc: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0E0787CE-4834-4ECF-87B3-5E5E001AE4BB@ihmc.us>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>

On Jan 15, 2010, at 3:36 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:

> 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.

Well, OK, I guess there is a real split between the idea of RDF being  
simply a datastructuring device along the lines of LISP or XML, and  
its being a language with a semantics (and so supporting inference).  
Ive always assumed that it was the latter. But if y'all think that the  
semantic web doesn't need semantics after all, go ahead. I do have  
other things to do.


> 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).
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> -- 
> http://danny.ayers.name

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 Friday, 15 January 2010 17:17:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC