On 03/30/2014 12:13 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 29, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschnei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 03/29/2014 03:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:26 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hmm. I would be inclined to violate IRI opacity at this point and have
a convention that says that any schema.org property schema:ppp can have
a sister property called schema:pppList, for any character string ppp.
So you ought to check schema:knowsList when you are asked to look for
schema:knows. Then although there isn't a link in the conventional
sense, there is a computable route from schema:knows to
schema:knowsList, which as far as I am concerned amounts to a link.
Schema.org doesn't suffer from this issue as much as other vocabularies do
as it isn't defined with RDFS but uses its own, looser description
mechanisms such as schema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes. So what
I'm really looking for is a solution that would work in general, not just
for some vocabularies.
[...]
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
I would like to see some firm definition of just how these looser description
mechanisms actually work.
Yes, I agree. Let me put the question rather more sharply. What follows from
knowing that
ppp schema:domainIncludes ccc . ?
Suppose you know this and you also know that
x ppp y .
Can you infer x rdf:type ccc? I presume not, since the domain might include
other stuff outside ccc. So, what *can* be inferred about the relationship
between x and ccc ? As far as I can see, nothing can be inferred. If I am
wrong, please enlighten me. But if I am right, what possible utility is there
in even making a schema:domainIncludes assertion?
If "inference" is too strong, let me weaken my question: what possible utility
**in any way whatsoever** is provided by knowing that schema:domainIncludes holds between
ppp and ccc? What software can do what with this, that it could not do as well without
this?
Having a piece of formalism which claims to be a 'weak' assertion becomes
simply ludicrous when it is so weak that it carries no content at all. This
bears the same relation to axiom writing that miming does to wrestling.
Pat
Perhaps this could be somewhat sharpened to "that professional wrestling does
to wrestling".
peter
