On 19 Jun 2011, at 15:26, Hugh Glaser wrote: > On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >>> >>> >>> There seem to be some axes in the discussion: >>> publish / consume >>> long/medium term / shorter term >>> ideal / pragmatic >>> Interestingly, we don't seem to have a strong theory / practice axis, which >>> is great. >>> >>> As a publisher, I/we have had to work pretty hard to conform to really >>> quite complex requirements for publishing RDF as Linked Data; not just >>> Range-14, but voiD, sitemaps and various bits and pieces that Kingsley >>> always tells me to do in the RDF. >>> As a consumer, it has been pretty simple: "Well guv, thanks for the URI, >>> here's some RDF." >>> It has always been something of a source of angst (if not actual pain) to >>> me that none of the extra work I put into publishing RDF is ever used by me >>> or anyone else, as far as I know. >> >> Er. we use it :-) > Er, I'm not sure you do :-) > You certainly consume it, and a very nice job you do to. > But the "use" is more than generic browsers - it suggest to me that something > useful might happen as a result of the consumption (perhaps I learn that I > can ask Jim to introduce me to Mary, as he knows her better than anyone else > I know).
exactly. At that level you start using the specific logic of some relations, here perhaps the foaf:knows relation, which is other than the high very lightly constraining rdfs or owl framework. One might say that one only really uses foaf:knows when one has software than understands the specific intension of that relationship. > These things are usually called applications, or possibly services. > They tend to be reasonably domain-specific, as generic things tend not to be > easy to use, or even fit for purpose for end users. yes. And since we are working in a self organising system, these applications have to be designed so that every use grows the value of the network, and creates incentives for correct data to be published, and maintained. > Sorry if I have missed stuff. In recent e-mail Hugh also wrote in reply to me: > But I don't write special case filters - if I did it would not consider it > Semantic Web. > I simply follow my nose to use the URI (or in fact usually via an owl:sameas > in a sameas store), and they work. > It all works because my code that consumes the retrieved RDF to build the > data enrichment by inference (things like the communities of practice), and > things like my fresnel lenses, restrict any ambiguity by looking for the > predicates, etc. they care about. > RDF can be a long way short of what we want it to be without having to treat > it as special cases. yes, we will be dealing with inconsistent data whatever we do. But we need ways of telling when things are inconsistent so that we can then recognise when this is the case and find ways around things. As I mentioned, I think we don't recognise inconsistency much because few people use inferencing. And inferencing need not just be owl inferencing, it can be the type of inferencing that comes from human understanding of what it means to foaf:know someone, or other terms with particular complex intentions. Henry Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
