Jeremy Carroll wrote:
Jiří Procházka wrote:
I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be
able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype,
language, etc) does it break OWL DL
yes it does
(or any other formalism which is
base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?
Not OWL full
Or would it if
rdf:sameAs was introduced?
It would still break OWL DL
Best,
Jiri
OWL DL is orthogonal to this issue. The OWL DLers already prohibit
certain RDF - specifically the workaround for not having literal as
subjects. So they are neutral.
I reiterate that I agree whole-heartedly with the technical arguments
for making this change; however the economic case is missing.
Are you referring to the cost of fixing RDF/XML or the cost of
specifying RDF correctly and having RDF/XML as a subset of RDF?
IMHO the economic case (and ethical, technical) is extremely strong when
you look at it on the ten year timeline - pinning all of RDF on the
serialization specific features and limitations of RDF/XML really
hinders progress (now and in the future).
There doesn't need to be any cost here, define RDF properly and separate
from any serialization, define RDF/XML as a subset of it, and let us all
get on and create new and wonderful serializations that will drive
another decade of innovation.
I'm 100% sure that if tooling for N3 was more widely available and the
web of data was N3 powered, we'd be much further down the line - the
proof is already there with the work done at MIT-CSAIL and RPI, fact is
you simply can't do everything needed for a web of data with RDF/XML.
Best,
Nathan
