- From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:21:55 -0300
- To: semantic-web@w3.org, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 17:26:23 UTC
Sorry for me being so ignorant. But what could be called 'semantic' (in the sense of 'meaning', I suppose) for the current frameworks, at least the couple I know, available for ontologies of some kind if they could assert between their instances which statements and resources are equivalent (being them in a different language/encoding or different 'contextual' terms for the same subjects for example). Another important lack of 'semantics' is ordering (temporal or whatsoever) where a statement or resource should be treated at least in relation to their previous or following elements. If my last posts where so blurry is because I try to address some of this issues, besides others, trying no to fall in the promise that adhering to one format will free us all of any interoperability hassles. Remember a similar promise from XML: "All we have to do is share DTDs and interoperate". I'll still trying to give the format a twist (RDF Quads) but I'll publish a Google Document open for comments. Best, Sebastián.
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 17:26:23 UTC