Re: RDF Extensibility

On 8 Jul 2010, at 22:06, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> >> On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: >> >>> Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficu

Re: Subjects as Literals

On 8 Jul 2010, at 20:30, David Booth wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:03 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote: >>> [ . . . ] foaf:knows a rdf:Property . Well we can dereference foaf:

Efficient Data discovery and Sync Support - proposed method and Sindice implementation

Apologies for cross posting - Dear all So far semantic web search engines and semantic aggregation services have been inserting datasets by hand or have been based on "random walk" like crawls with no data completeness or freshness guarantees. After quite some work, we are happy to annou

Re: RDF Aggregation Operators (Was: RDF Extensibility)

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:43 -0400, Adrian Walker wrote: > Hi Pat, > > You wrote... > > ..how do we know, given some RDF, what semantic extensions are > appropriately to be used when interpreting it? That is a VERY good > question. This is something that RDF2 could most usefully tackle,... A fair

Re: RDF Extensibility

On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500 Pat Hayes wrote: I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic specification, which would have to keep track of this 'meaninglessn

Re: Capturing the discussion (RE: Subjects as Literals)

Sandro, all, I created the wikipage as you suggested. It is sketchy and certainly a bit biased towards my own opinion but I guess this will be improved as the document extends. Le 07/07/2010 05:01, Sandro Hawke a écrit : Would anyone be willing to try to capture the results of this thread

Re: FYI: Blog on HTTP Link header and host-wide well-known URI-s, and Linked Data

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:03:21 +0200 Ivan Herman wrote: > http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/07/new_opportunities_for_linked_d.html Not sure why my comment yesterday has still not shown up, but for the benefit of these lists... I've been supporting some of these technologies in my Perl modules

Re: RDF Extensibility

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to >> conclude that foaf:Person is not a property. However, even

Re: Subjects as Literals

On 08.07.2010 19:06, Pat Hayes wrote: >> With literals, typing has come up but it hasn't been fully integrated >> with the rest of the RDF grammar; you can still say things like >> 'ten(integer) much-likes "Sampo"@fi' without any usual type system >> catching the error. > > LIteral types don't che

Re: RDF Extensibility

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:16:06 -0500 Pat Hayes wrote: > I would veto this option. To do this would be a lot more work than > not doing it; and it would greatly complicate the semantic > specification, which would have to keep track of this > 'meaninglessness'. Why would tools need to keep track of

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:03 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote: > > [ . . . ] > >> foaf:knows a rdf:Property . > >> > >> Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is > >> the c

Re: RDF Extensibility

On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: Without knowing the definition of foaf:Person, it's difficult to conclude that foaf:Person is not a property. However, even without knowing the definition of a literal, it is easy to con

Re: RDF Extensibility

On Jul 7, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:11:19 -0500 Pat Hayes wrote: The world doesn't have facts like that in it. Classes and properties are intellectual constructs, not the stuff of reality. Hell, if a particle can be a wave, then surely a class can be a prope

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2010-07-05, Pat Hayes wrote: This objection strikes me as completely wrong-headed. Of course literals are machine processable. What precisely does "Sampo" as a plain literal mean to a computer? Do give me the fullest semantics you can.

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:23 PM, David Booth wrote: On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote: [ . . . ] foaf:knows a rdf:Property . Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we should use

Re: Subjects as Literals

On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF. so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines RDF? Well, the current specs do. And they in

Re: [ANN] Major update of Lexvo.org

Hi Bernard, On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote: > > Basically that's it. If this practice seems good from social and technical > viewpoint it could be a good idea to document it in a more formal way and > put it somewhare on the wiki. There has been a page set up on the wiki a