- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:38:07 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: jeremy@topquadrant.com, tai@g5n.co.uk, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
2010/1/15 Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>: > > On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > >> Jeremy, Toby, anyone, >> >> >> Aside from a little tidiness, what would we actually gain through >> going the whole hog on what can go in which position in the triple? > > Well, the tidyness isnt to be sniffed at. It makes the specs a lot easier to > write (and to read), for a start. Also it makes syntax checking easier. It > makes it easier to think about the language (you don't have to keep mentally > checking yourself to see if you've broken some arbitrary rule.) IT makes the > closure inference rules and the query matching rules simpler and easier to > implement. And it does no harm. Ok, that's a good case. >> blank node predicate - what does that tell you that an rdfs:seeAlso >> wouldn't? > > SeeAlso tells you almost nothing, in fact. SeeAlso plus HTTP potentially tells you what you want to know. But you could for example have a > class of properties and say that one or more of them holds between two > things. Consider for example > > fatherOf rdf:type FamilyRelation . > motherOf rdf:type FamilyRelation . > sisterOf ... (etc.) > > and then > > _:x rdf:type FamilyRelation . > Alice _:x Bill . > > says that Alice and Bill are related somehow. (In case you are thinking that > subproperty would work here, it won't.) Would you actually want to model things like that? The DL thing of individual vs. class goes underfoot for starters. hmm...it does seem a slight stretch - don't we have the rule of thumb that anything remotely significant deserves a name (URI) of its own? Surely all predicates come under that umbrella. The make it neater/simplify argument works for me, not convinced by this example but I'll bear with you :) >> >> literal subject - aside from quotations: >> >> "I can't really see how it would be useful" <x:saidBy> <#me> . > > "37"^^xsd:number rdf:type PrimeNumber . > > "42"^^xsd:number :playsRoleIn :HitchHIkersGuide . > > "66"^^xsd:number :greaterThan _:x . > _:x :age :PatHayes . > > (which is why I don't get a full SS pension this year). Well I never had you down as a Schutzstaffel kinda guy... > > I'm sure I could think of others. > > But the main point is that allowing all this makes the language *simpler*. > the question should be, why the hell did we not allow it in the first place? Makes a lot of sense to me, I like tidy, thanks Pat. Cheers, Danny.
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 20:38:41 UTC