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

Re: RDF Aggregation Operators (Was: RDF Extensibility)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:06:56 -0400
To: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <1278626816.13675.26124.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 -0400, Adrian Walker wrote:
> Hi Pat,
> 
> You wrote...
> 
> ..how do we know, given some RDF, what semantic extensions are
> appropriately to be used when interpreting it? That is a VERY good
> question. This is something that RDF2 could most usefully tackle,...

A fairly widely held view -- though I'm sure not universal -- is that
the URIs used in the graph should signal the intended semantic
extensions.  For example, if you use an OWL predicate, then the OWL
semantics for that predicate are intended.  This is described in "PART
3: Determining Resource Identity" of "Resource Identity and Semantic
Extensions: Making Sense of Ambiguity":
http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/#part3 

HOWEVER, it is important to distinguish between the intent of the RDF
statement author and what the RDF consumer chooses to do with the graph.
It is critical that the RDF consumer be able to determine the intended
semantics of the graph, i.e., to be able to know what entailments the
RDF author intended.  This is essence of successful communication.  But
this does *not* obligate the RDF consumer to actually *produce* all of
those entailments.  That is a choice that is entirely up to the RDF
consumer and will vary by application.

The question that you are asking has to do with the roles,
responsibilities and expectations of the URI owner, RDF statement author
and RDF consumer.  I have proposed some standard guidelines in "The URI
Lifecycle in Semantic Web Architecture":
http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/ 

There was some discussion at the RDF Next Steps workshop about having
the next RDF working group tackle this issue, but the prevailing view
was that it should not.  Personally, I think this was because the issue
is not yet well enough understood in the semantic web community as a
whole.  More education and discussion are needed first.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 23:19:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:12 UTC