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

On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes <> 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.

Point taken. I agree, except that I think equality is much trickier on  
the Web than we ever realized until recently.

> 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).



> 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

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 05:44:45 UTC