Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

> On 22/11/2018 8:40 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> One bright light in our favor is that RDF already provides a
>> very solid foundation to build upon, based on formal logic.
> 
> Would you mind clarifying this statement a bit? What practical benefits 
> would the foundation on formal logic add to a future (simplified) RDF, 
> for average users? 

Fair point.  I only meant that the semantics are already very well 
worked out: we don't have to start from scratch.

> I have seen plenty of evidence that some aspects of 
> the semantic technology stack are being regarded as too academic, and 
> that the role of formal logic has been one driver of this detachment. 

Yes, I've noticed that sentiment also.  But I also think that an easier 
version of RDF could still be based on formal logic under the hood, 
without appearing so academic.  Or at least, I hope it can!

> Related topics are the non-unique-name-assumption and the open world 
> assumption that are typically neither understood nor expected by average 
> users.

Agreed.  And although I definitely see their importance in the Semantic 
Web architecture, in my experience individual applications almost 
invariably close the world and impose a unique name assumption at some 
point.  In summary, although I think those principles are important to 
retain, for practical purposes I think tools should make it easy to 
close the world and impose a unique name assumption.

David Booth