On 7/11/2010 4:25 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
Jena, which Jeremy's software is based on, *does* allow literals as
subjects internally (the Graph SPI) and the rule reasoners *do* work
with generalized triples just as most such RDF reasoners do. However, we
go to some lengths to stop the generalized
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 22:44 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
> not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
> by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening.
> Your company took a ris
The other economic-like argument is that there is only so much developer
bandwidth in the world, whether open source or proprietary. Do you
think that bandwidth should be applied to changing current code to track
changes, to making existing systems more usable, or (open source) on
supporting u
I greatly respect Jeremy's thoughts, and they may be spot-on in this
case, but I urge the community to be cautious about how much weight to
give this kind of "pragmatic" economics-driven argument generally as
the semantic technology industry grows.
Virtually every organization has -- should have!
On 7/1/2010 8:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening
I was asking for the economic benefit of the ch
Henry Story wrote:
>So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
>allowed literals in
>subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
>
>"123" length 3 .
>
>Into
>
>_:b owl:sameAs "123";
> length 3.
But this is not an equivalent translation in RDF
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:39 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> >> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
> >> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
> >> serializations of N3 to
will look into ISO Common Logic to get familiar then - fwiw so long as
it supports everything RDF Semantics supports, and allows graph
literals, I'm easy and can change at any time :)
Pat Hayes wrote:
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in that
direction, I would va
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in
that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common
Logic, or something based on it.
Pat
On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, yo
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
Another reason why the SW is failing:
You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you
are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow,
because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did
think of that it was ju
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>
> On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
>>not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
>
> Well, I think the "broader perspective" that the
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick
Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick
Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument
tha
On 2 Jul 2010, at 13:20, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Another reason why the SW is failing:
It is not failing, it is growing from strength to strength.
>
>> You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are
>> missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses w
On 02.07.2010 12:53:11, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is
>not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*.
Yes, full agreement here. That's why the thread felt so weird to me,
I think the entire focus is wrong. But
Henry,
Another reason why the SW is failing:
You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are
missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did
not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a
dream.
Or clos
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Henry,
>
> On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau
wrote:
>>
Hi Benjamin,
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:01, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? c'mon!).
It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad community
and marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks
have demonstrated that this i
Hi Richard,
> Such
work can not be realistically done within W3C for obvious reasons. It
has to be done outside W3C by the community.
I believe that's what the "normal/standard" web developers (I think
Henry Story called them "Web Monkeys" ;) ) do already, or?
Cheers,
Bob
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investme
On 02/07/2010 05:36, "Pat Hayes" wrote:
> In OWL-DL it is so restricted. Emphasis on the DL. So, don't use
> owl:sameAs. Use your own propietary sameAs; it needn't even be
> symmetric. We are after all taking RDF here, not OWL-DL. And in the
> case under discussion (keeping Jeremy from losing tho
[trimming cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
As I say in another post, I am not suggesting I have an alternative
but am suggesting that we broaden the conversation to more than "we
have invested so much so we have to be right" sort of reasoning.
The argument that Ian a
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:39 +0100, Ian Davis wrote:
> I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general
> logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move
> towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression
> in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 a
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
>>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur co
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
>>> investment by vendors =
>>>
>>>
>> I think I just an
Pat Hayes wrote:
>It is also important to distinguish changes which actually harm your
>code, and changes which simply make it less complete. Allowing literal
>subjects will not invalidate your engines in any way: it will simply
>mean that there will be some RDF out there which they may be unable
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investment by vendors =
I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me
know if not!
On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
>> who have based their assumptions upon no cha
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
> investment by vendors =
>
I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me
know if not!
Ian
Ian
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 3:39 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions upon no change
On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote:
>Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
>not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
Well, I think the "broader perspective" that the RDF workshop
failed to consider is exactly companies' costs and
Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by
those
who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took
a
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
> who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took
> a risk, appare
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The
RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always
part of
the RDF design to have this happe
Paul Gearon wrote:
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of
Hi Pat,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF specs
> actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was always part of
> the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have a version of
> owl:sameAs in
Hey, guys. It is perfectly fine to use OWL properties in RDF. The RDF
specs actually encourage this kind of semantic borrowing, it was
always part of the RDF design to have this happen. So no need to have
a version of owl:sameAs in the RDFS namespace. Just use the OWL one.
Pat
On Jul 1, 2
On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> ...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along
that allowed literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
"123" length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs "1
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
by those who have based their assumptions upon no change happening.
Your company took a risk, apparently. IMO it was a bad risk, as you
could have imp
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF
Data Model.
I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore.
XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It h
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:05:54 -0400
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> W3C only officially acknowledges RDF/XML as Markup Language for RDF
> Data Model.
I hear this time and time again, but it is not true anymore.
XHTML+RDFa 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2008. It has the
same publication stat
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was
simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
You mean you didn't se
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Something else that keeps coming up, a subset of owl always comes in to
> conversations, obviously owl:sameAs - there was a proposal from one Jim
> Hendler [1] at a RDF workshop thing to perhaps do something about moving
> these up a level to RDFS.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> The sequence went something like this.
>>>
>>> TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was
>>> simply
>>> in the dark ages.
>>>
>>
>> It's only simple if you weren't there :)
>
> You mean you didn't see me lurking
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
The sequence went something like this.
TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply
in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
You mean you didn't see me lu
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> The sequence went something like this.
>
> TimBL Design Issues Note. and SPARQL emergence. Before that, RDF was simply
> in the dark ages.
It's only simple if you weren't there :)
cheers,
Dan
Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
Jeremy, et al.,
I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents
after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution.
To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing
literals in the subject position. I've read the discuss
Jeremy, et al.,
I think people are already showing the money but they do it 2 cents
after 2 cents ;-) Here is my little 2 cent contribution.
To start with, I am on the side of the people in favour of allowing
literals in the subject position. I've read the discussion and pondered
the argum
Dear Tim,
Le 01/07/2010 20:03, Tim Finin a écrit :
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> ...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
allowed literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
"123" length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs "
On 7/1/2010 11:51 AM, Henry Story wrote:
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed
literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
"123" length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs "123";
length 3.
?
I couldn't because chunks o
Jiří Procházka wrote:
On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed
literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for
On 07/01/2010 09:11 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
> On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> ...
>>> So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
>>> allowed literals in
>>> subjec
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
On 1 Jul 2010, at 21:03, Tim Finin wrote:
> On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> > ...
>> So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that
>> allowed literals in
>> subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that tu
Bernard Vatant wrote:
Hi Dan, Kingsley
Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in
the corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a
while ago.
I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the
fact that RDF was somehow just an av
On 7/1/10 2:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> ...
So just as a matter of interest, imagine a new syntax came along that allowed
literals in
subject position, could you not write a serialiser for it that turned
"123" length 3 .
Into
_:b owl:sameAs "123";
length 3.
?
So that really you'd hav
Dan Brickley wrote:
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Cut long story short.
[-cut-]
We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data
representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the
foundati
On 1 Jul 2010, at 20:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>> On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that
>>> assumes throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and
>>> a node in a predicate pos
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes
throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node in a
predicate position is a URI node.
On 7/1/2010 8:46 AM, Henry Story wrote:
but is that
Hi Dan, Kingsley
Happy to see you expose clearly those things that have been also in the
corner of my mind since Kingsley started to hammer the EAV drum a while ago.
I've been also in training and introduction to RDF insisted on the fact that
RDF was somehow just an avatar of the old paradigm EAV
On 7/1/2010 10:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a
triple store.
OK - and why are these use cases not reasonably easily addressable using
the N-ary predicate design pattern with a two place ltieral predicate i.e.
instead of
Lit1
(cc: list trimmed to LOD list.)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Cut long story short.
[-cut-]
> We have an EAV graph model, URIs, triples and a variety of data
> representation mechanisms. N3 is one of those, and its basically the
> foundation that bootstrapped the Hou
Or, an even simpler use-case: storing metaphones for strings in a triple
store.
y
On 1 Jul 2010 18:15, "Yves Raimond" wrote:
Hello Jeremy!
One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as
Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index
lookup,
Hello Jeremy!
One example on the top of my head. You have a 'magic predicate' such as
Virtuoso bif:contains, but slightly more expansive than that (a large index
lookup, a difficult mathematical computation or fuzzy literal search, etc).
If you were able to store the result in RDF once that magic
Nathan wrote:
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone,
Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the
mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out
of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical
communities
Nathan wrote:
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone,
Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the
mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out
of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical
communities
Sandro Hawke wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
>> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
>> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
>> serializations of N3 to come along.
>
> RIF (which b
Saw them, smiled, threw them in the bin.
I can't present a use case for "Literals as Subject", but I did have a
relevant experience recently when having written a reasoner for sindice
I was briefly intrigued to discover that executing some owl rules leads
to a production of statements where li
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
> serializations of N3 to come along.
RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in
so
Excellent point!
I can easily come up with examples where current SPARQL capabilities are too
limiting or where atomic list nodes would tremendously help. But for
literals-as-subjects, I do not see the need. It might also depend on how you
interpret RDF:
(1) A triple is an element in a relation
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
> subjects
>
> I have loads and loads of code, both open source and commercial that assumes
> throughout that a node in a subject position is not a literal, and a node
Dan, Jeremy, Pat, Henry, Michael, Kinglsey, Ivan, ack.. everyone,
Part of me feels like I should apologise for bringing this to the
mailing list (even though it was inevitable) - this is all getting out
of scope and the last thing we need is one of the most critical
communities in what's a min
RE getting "a full list of the benefits," surely if it's being
discussed here, "Literals as Subjects" must be *somebody's* Real(tm)
Problem and the benefits are inherent in its solution?
And if it isn't, um, why is it being discussed here? ;)
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
Jeremy, the point is to start the process, but put it on a low burner,
so that in 4-5 years time, you will be able to sell a whole new RDF+ suite to
your customers with this new benefit. ;-)
On 1 Jul 2010, at 17:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the c
> I am still not hearing any argument to justify the costs of literals as
> subjects.
+1
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 49
76 matches
Mail list logo
