W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2014

Re: What should we call RDF's ability to allow multiple models to peacefully coexist, interconnected?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 14:36:49 +0000
Message-ID: <531B2B01.3020107@ninebynine.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: "Timothy W. Cook" <tim@mlhim.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 07/03/2014 20:09, David Booth wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 02:33 PM, Timothy W. Cook wrote:
>> [ . . . ]  What RDF really does is;
>> provide a data model agnostic 'layer for semantic connections across
>> information resources'.
>
> That is true, but I am hoping for a term that somehow also succinctly conveys
> the **value proposition** of doing so -- i.e., a term that somehow alludes to
> the benefit that this characteristic provides.

I see the key value proposition is that is provides a semantically sound basis 
to combine data from different sources -- provided that the different sources 
use terms in consistent ways (i.e. satisfying the same semantic models).

The core if this, IMO, is the semantic entailment associated with RDF graph 
merges, per the "Merging Lemma" in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ (section 2 and appendix A).  (I 
just noticed this is omitted from the latest model theory - I assume it hasn't 
been invalidated by the changes.)

It turns out, per a poster by Patel-Schneider and Haves presented at ISWC 2013 
(http://iswc2013.semanticweb.org/content/posters/14) these core semantics are 
extremely weak.  IMO, that's a feature not a bug, if sufficient to allow graph 
merging without loss of corruption of meaning.

#g
--


>
> David
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
>> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     I -- and I'm sure many others -- have struggled for years trying to
>>     succinctly describe RDF's ability to allow multiple data models to
>>     peacefully coexist, interconnected, in the same data.  For data
>>     integration, this is a key strength of RDF that distinguishes it
>>     from other information representation languages such as XML.   I
>>     have tried various terms over the years -- most recently "schema
>>     promiscuous" -- but have not yet found one that I think really nails
>>     it, so I would love to get other people's thoughts.
>>
>>     This google doc lists several candidate terms, some pros and cons,
>>     and allows you to indicate which ones you like best:
>>     http://goo.gl/zrXQgj
>>
>>     Please have a look and indicate your favorite(s).  You may also add
>>     more ideas and comments to it.  The document can be edited by anyone
>>     with the URL.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>     David Booth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> MLHIM VIP Signup: http://goo.gl/22B0U
>> ============================================
>> Timothy Cook, MSc           +55 21 994711995
>> MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
>> Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
>> Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
>> Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
>> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
>
Received on Saturday, 8 March 2014 14:43:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:41 UTC