W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Which semantics?

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:20:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmz44s_pWj-oC1bcYnjgXuDPHLkiV7juW9wiO7YioL5Cng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de
Sebastian,

I think it is useful to think about the merge operation between datasets.

Here I mean a "physical" merge, where records with the same
identifiers become augmented with more data, when multiple datasets
are merged together. A "logical", or "semantic" merge, with vocabulary
mappings etc., comes on top of that.

So if you take the relational or XML models, there is no generic way
to do that. With RDF, there is: you simply concatenate the datasets,
because they have a stable structure (triples) and built-in global
identifiers (URIs).

That said, you should try approaching things from another end: start
building a small but concrete solution and solve problems one by one,
instead of overthinking/reinventing the top-down architecture. Until
you do that, you will probably not get relevant advice on these
mailing lists.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 19:20:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:49 UTC