- From: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:40:26 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at>
- Cc: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>, Joshua Shinavier <joshsh@uber.com>, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> I beg to disagree: there are several proposals on reification for RDF Sure, but proposals are a dime a dozen. Usable implementations and good tools are much rarer. (Let's worry about standards much later, expending the energy only when something is shown to work and gain traction.) > there is RDF*, so things are moving on in exactly this direction. That's interesting. I wasn't aware of RDF*. There seem to be a couple of implementations. I need to look more closely at it. > IMHO, it's not about inventing names, it's about recognizing gaps and > closing them, abotu not throwing out the baby with the bathtub and > re-inventing the wheel, about combining and evolving successful > approaches... whether terminology/naming evolves over time as well is > secondary. Sure, I agree. There *are* also good things to come from RDF. The use of URIs as identifiers that you can also use to fetch more information is a keeper for sure. If RDF* works, then we start to have a useful annotation language, and that's great. Now we need to understand what the interface between RDF (or KG) and things that are not, and should not be RDF (or KG) looks like. (Such as sequences and tables -- yes, I know you can do integers as Church numerals, and it's interesting, but nobody actually does that, for good reason). Best wishes, William Waites | wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2019 08:40:56 UTC