Thanks Danny for helping these threads find each other.
I had a long conversation with Sean B. Palmer on the topic on #swig,
of which I highlighted some elements here
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0066.html
------
Is it really "Semantic" content neg that we want? That is only part
of the problem.
Imagine I only understand the atomOwl vocab [1] and I expect this
<> a :CategoryList;
:category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
:term "dog" ];
:category [ :scheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
:term "house" ].
but I receive this
<> a :McDonaldCategoryList;
:McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
:McTerm "dog" ];
:McCategory [ :McScheme <http://eg.com/cats/>;
:McTerm "house" ].
Where in fact
:McDonaldCategoryList owl:sameAs :CategoryList .
:McCategory owl:sameAs :category .
:McScheme owl:sameAs :scheme .
:McTerm owl:sameAs :term .
In that case both documents are in fact semantically identical.
So what one wants is either
- a way to specify the *vocabulary* the client understands, and
have the sender send back content only in that vocabulary, or at
least add some mappings from its vocab to the one understood by the
client.
- or way to specify in detail the relations that will appear in a
document and the vocabulary used to describe those relations, so that
by stating that a resource is say a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument, one
not only knows what types of relations one will find in there, but
also that one will be able to interpret them.
Henry
[1] http://bblfish.net/work/atom-owl/2006-06-06/
On 24 Jul 2006, at 11:39, Danny Ayers wrote:
Oops, I was a couple of posts out in the first link, should be a
little less baffling with this one:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/
0139.html
(thanks Henry!)
On 7/24/06, Danny Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems to be a little thread convergence going on. Gmail doesn't seem
to allow in-reply-to on two posts, so instead:
Re: BioRDF: URI Best Practices
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/
0141.html
Re: expectations of vocabulary
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Jul/0068.html
[I've at least one ulterior motive in wanting to see this discussion
evolve further. When I get time I want to play with the idea of
"semantic cookies" - put the URI of the agent-user's FOAF profile
in a
Link: header, server adjusts response appropriately]
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
--
http://dannyayers.com
