Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

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