Re: "Including" other RDF and RDFS files

pat hayes wrote:

> I have mixed feelings about this. It IS a neat idea and is widely 
> used. On the other hand, if it gets used too cleverly then it will 
> violate the RDF spec, since it can easily produce a completely 
> different logic which doesnt mix with the standard RDF inference 
> machinery. Well, OK, so let 10|3 flowers bloom, is one reaction. BUt 
> speaking as one of the standards-writers its hard for me to live with 
> that without complaining.

My proposal [1] has nothing to do with logic.  A semref from one RDF 
document to another is just like a like an <a href> from one web page to 
another.  There are no logical entailments implied or wanted.   If 
people want logical entailments from their references to graphs in other 
documents, they should use a logical language which implies what they 
want.  Perhaps something like owl:imports [2].


By your own admission, "There are clearly syntactic and operational 
boundaries between graphs."  Well point is we need some standard arcs in 
our graphs that relate to those syntactic boundaries so that our 
programs will have the facts to operate on.  The WG ignoring that  need, 
and semingly telling us that they are only concerned with logic 
programming, is not helping  the interoperablity of applications that 
are not necessarily based on logical inference.  Last time I looked that 
was about 95 % of the RDF which was being used for practical matters.   

> Sure, it kind of makes sense, but not everyone else uses it that way.

Well that feels very much like "Let them eat cake".    We *do* want 
people to use the same property to refer from one RDF graph to another, 
and for that to happen the WG should (imho) put semref in RDFS.   

Brian, if there is some more official way for me to ask for this 
(whether it is taken up by the current WG or posponed to some future 
rework) could you let me know ?

Seth Russell

Received on Sunday, 29 September 2002 17:22:19 UTC