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

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:29:51 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilaV8pIsBKxLAHSMryApO-bbosX4Uc_Fn5YvlrO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Pat,

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I know that borrowing terms is allowed. Indeed, it gets used every day.

The thing is that we're talking about maybe cleaning RDF up a little.
(emphasis on the "maybe" - though that's starting to look more
likely). In this case, it makes sense to me that a term for equality
would make it's way into RDFS, simply because there are a lot of use
cases where people are sticking to just that namespace, with the
single exception of owl:sameAs. Also from an aesthetics point of view,
equality is such a common concept that I'm surprised it wasn't already
lower in the stack.

Nothing in RDF *needs* to be changed. But if it does get updated, then
I think that it would be nice to clean things a little while all the
new features get added (such as named graphs).

Paul Gearon
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 05:30:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:19 UTC