- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:31:12 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at>, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Mark Wallace <mwallace@modusoperandi.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@main.uusia.org>, "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Nathan wrote: > Pat Hayes wrote: >> Regrettable as it may be, there is now a large (and growing) community of RDF users who really do not care very much about OWL or RIF, certainly do not care a jot for the distinctions between the various species of OWL, use SPARQL only as an RDF version of SQL, and have absolutely no use for blank nodes and strongly advise their peers to avoid using them. The patterns of reasoning exemplified by blank node scoping are of no interest to them whatsoever. If anything, existential generalization is a nuisance, rather than a useful inference. They would be very happy with RDF engines which flag blank nodes as errors or (better) automatically skolemize them. > > So then, is that RDF that they are using? and why change RDF? > > Why not just create a new triple based rdf-subset compatible specification, call it "web data" or something. Or 'ground RDF' . Yes. I confess however that part of my own private agenda at this point is just to see how much easier the entire RDF experience (including SPARQL and OWL and RIF) would be if we simply wrote blank nodes out of RDF altogether. Pat > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:32:20 UTC