> 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 BoothReceived on Thursday, 22 November 2018 03:45:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:57 UTC