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

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:29:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2DF7B4.4010501@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
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>
will look into ISO Common Logic to get familiar then - fwiw so long as 
it supports everything RDF Semantics supports, and allows graph 
literals, I'm easy and can change at any time :)

Pat Hayes wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Pat
> 
> 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
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 14:30:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:11 UTC