honestly, if those guys [1] get by without literals as subject, i think
everybody should :-)
is there any serious, real world use case, that would solve a problem
without messing with unique, globally identifyable keys?
even more useful things to do.. :-)
=> jurgen#u rdf:type some:LetterU <=
=> rdf:type budd:Nirvana <=
[1] http://linguistic-lod.org/llod-cloud
*Jürgen Jakobitsch*
Senior Technical Consultant
Semantic Web Company GmbH
EU: +43-14021235 <+43%201%204021235>
US: (415) 800-3776
Mobile: +43-676-6212710 <+43%20676%206212710>
https://www.poolparty.biz
https://www.semantic-web.com
*Download E-Book*: Introducing Semantic AI
<https://www.poolparty.biz/machine-learning-meets-semantics/>
Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 15:38 Uhr schrieb William Waites <
wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>:
> > For example, what does
> > { :isLabelOf owl:inverseOf rdfs:label . }
> > actually cause/mean or whatever?
>
> I think it means:
>
> { ?A owl:inverseOf ?B. ?C ?B ?D } => { ?D ?A ?C }.
> { ?A owl:inverseOf ?B } => { ?B owl:inverseOf ?A }.
>
> A meta-observation about rules. This might be an unusual point of view,
> but it
> seems to me that the meaning of statements in a language like RDF is very
> closely
> tied to the inference rules that you choose involving them. There is
> nothing that
> says you must use all available rules. But the set of rules that you choose
> determines what conclusions get drawn. Rules can provide context in this
> way.
>
> So if you wanted to write,
>
> :alice :bornIn “May”.
>
> there is a rule-set under which that makes sense and useful conclusions can
> be drawn, e.g.,
>
> “May” a :Month.
>
> There are also rule-sets where it doesn’t make sense and nonsense
> conclusions
> are drawn. But that’s a choice about how to interpret the statements.
>
> Best wishes,
> -w
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 November 2018 15:16:00 UTC