- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:52:22 -0500
- To: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one. Pat On Jul 1, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Paul Gearon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > > <snip/> >> Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes >> in to >> conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one >> Jim >> Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about >> moving >> these up a level to RDFS. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31 >> >> Didn't seem to get much feedback or thoughts (afaik), but given the >> climate >> perhaps it's worth giving some strong consideration to as a >> community. >> >> (Or just doing because it's a bloody good idea & would remove OWL >> from >> virtually every conversation we end up having). > > I agree with this. In particular, I'd love to see an equivalent to > owl:sameAs in the rdfs namespace, probably with a more intuitive name, > like rdfs:equals. It would take OWL out of a lot of conversations. > > There weren't any accepted proposals for working on RDFS at the > workshop, but that doesn't mean it can't still be done. However, it > would need a lot of public support if this were to be considered. If > people are interested, they should voice their opinions. > > Regards, > Paul Gearon > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 2 July 2010 04:54:12 UTC