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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:13:58 -0500
Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6E57BBFE-44F2-48FD-B3E6-BD40F06FD396@ihmc.us>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in  
that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common  
Logic, or something based on it.


On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote:

> Ian Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV,  
>>> but not
>>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs  
>>> by those
>>> who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your  
>>> company took
>>> a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you could have  
>>> implemented a
>>> better inference engine if you had allowed literal subjects  
>>> internally in
>>> the first place, but whatever. But that is not an argument for  
>>> there to be
>>> no further change for the rest of the world and for all future  
>>> time. Who
>>> knows what financial opportunities might become possible when this  
>>> change is
>>> made, opportunities which have not even been contemplated until now?
>> I think Jeremy speaks for most vendors that have made an investment  
>> in
>> the RDF stack. In my opinion the time for this kind of low level
>> change was back in 2000/2001 not after ten years of investment and
>> deployment. Right now the focus is rightly on adoption and fiddling
>> with the fundamentals will scare off the early majority for another 5
>> years. You are right that we took a risk on a technology and made our
>> investment accordingly, but it was a qualified risk because many of  
>> us
>> also took membership of the W3C to have influence over the technology
>> direction.
>> I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general
>> logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move
>> towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data  
>> expression
>> in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 alternative and interoperable n3
>> implementations in use to iron out the problems, just like we have
>> with RDF engines (I can name 10+ and know of no interop issues  
>> between
>> them)
> Sounds good, doesn't break anything for anybody, and anybody who  
> adopts N3 get's all the deployed RDF goodness too! - from what Pat  
> says it seems RDF Semantics supports most of N3 apart from a few  
> syntax bits and the notable graph literals - perhaps an idea to try  
> and get graph literals in to the RDF Semantics before we hit this  
> again in 2020 and wonder why the then well supported N3 doesn't have  
> them :)
> my how this has came full circle,
> Best,
> Nathan

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 14:15:33 UTC

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